An employee was forced to resign during the occupation of Crimea: The Supreme Court's Grand Chamber reinstated him after the ECHR ruling

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its ruling dated June 10, 2026, in case No. 205/3280/14-c, reviewed an application for revision of a court decision under exceptional circumstances following the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the case "Vashchenko and Tretiak v. Ukraine."

The court considered the consequences of the ECHR's finding of a violation of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in connection with the annulment of final national court decisions.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff worked as Deputy Chairman of the Board for Economics and Investments of a Public Joint Stock Company (PJSC). After the beginning of the occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in March 2014, the enterprise was seized by persons appointed by the occupying authorities.

According to the plaintiff, under psychological pressure and in the presence of armed persons, he wrote a resignation letter by mutual agreement. The dismissal order was signed by a person who, according to the plaintiff, did not have the authority to act on behalf of the company under Ukrainian law.

The court of first instance recognized the order as unlawful, reinstated the plaintiff at work, awarded average earnings for the forced absence period, wage arrears, and moral damages. The appellate court and the Higher Specialized Court of Ukraine upheld these decisions.

However, in 2017, the Supreme Court of Ukraine reviewed the case and annulled the decisions regarding reinstatement, average earnings, and moral damages, reasoning that the dismissal order was issued by a person appointed by the occupying authorities and therefore did not create legal consequences for the Ukrainian employer.

Subsequently, the ECHR in the case "Vashchenko and Tretiak v. Ukraine" established that such a review of final court decisions violated the principle of legal certainty guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.

Position of the Supreme Court

The court recalled that if the ECHR finds a violation of the Convention or its protocols, and if the domestic law of the state party provides only partial compensation, the ECHR, if necessary, grants the injured party just satisfaction (Article 41 of the Convention).

The application of restitutio in integrum is possible through a retrial, including the resumption of proceedings, if Ukraine takes individual measures to implement the ECHR judgment in the case in which it is a party.

Thus, the ECHR decision may explicitly require the state to take additional individual measures, or such necessity can be inferred from the ECHR ruling itself to restore, as far as possible, the previous legal situation the person had before the violation of the Convention by re-examining the case in court, including resuming proceedings.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that the review of this case under an application for revision on exceptional grounds is carried out within the arguments and claims of such application, which must be consistent with the ECHR's conclusions in the relevant decision.

The violation established by the ECHR in its March 12, 2026 decision in "Vashchenko and Tretiak v. Ukraine" does not concern insufficient examination of the case circumstances by national courts or incorrect application of substantive law by courts of first, appellate, or cassation instances, but concerns the very fact of the Supreme Court of Ukraine annulling final and binding court decisions based on practice formed after those decisions were made.

The court also emphasized that the very existence of final and binding court decisions of three instances rendered in favor of the applicant is the legal state that must be restored to comply with the ECHR decision.

At the same time, in the case under review, the negative consequences for the applicant from the Supreme Court of Ukraine's ruling lie in the annulment of final and binding court decisions on the cancellation of the dismissal order, reinstatement to the position, and recovery of average earnings for the forced absence period and moral damages in his favor. The Grand Chamber noted that these consequences are legally heterogeneous in nature.

Therefore, the proper way to implement the ECHR decision is to annul the Supreme Court of Ukraine's ruling only in the part concerning the cancellation of the dismissal order and the reinstatement of the applicant, while leaving unchanged the part concerning the recovery of average earnings for the forced absence period and compensation for moral damages.

The Grand Chamber explained that the PJSC's reference that the ECHR decision does not contain a direct indication of the need to review national court decisions does not exclude such a review, and restoring the previous legal status of the person may be carried out by re-examining the case even when the necessity of such restoration can be inferred from the ECHR decision itself.

Having assessed the content of the ECHR ruling of March 12, 2026, in "Vashchenko and Tretiak v. Ukraine" and the nature of the negative consequences for the applicant, the court concluded on the necessity of such restoration in the part where the Supreme Court of Ukraine's ruling is annulled by this decision.

The Grand Chamber concluded that, given the ECHR's award of monetary compensation to the applicant equivalent to the amounts awarded by national courts in the decisions annulled by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, full annulment of this ruling would lead to double compensation.

Thus, the Supreme Court of Ukraine's ruling of April 12, 2017, is subject to annulment only in the part concerning the cancellation of the dismissal order and the reinstatement of the employee, i.e., in the part where the applicant's rights violation cannot be compensated solely in monetary form.

Further, the Grand Chamber determined the procedural consequences of this conclusion and decided that annulment of the Supreme Court of Ukraine's ruling in the relevant part necessitates resolving the company's application on the merits. The Grand Chamber considered it as a cassation court, taking into account the ECHR's conclusions, and denied the application in the relevant part.

The court indicated that this procedural mechanism ensures the restoration of the applicant's legal status in the part where the violation of the applicant's rights cannot be compensated by the ECHR solely in monetary form, while also ensuring compliance with the principle of inadmissibility of double compensation for the same violation.

As a result of the review, the Grand Chamber partially satisfied the plaintiff's application, annulled the Supreme Court of Ukraine's ruling only in the part concerning the legality of dismissal and reinstatement, and left the decisions of the courts of first, appellate, and cassation instances of 2015 unchanged in this part. At the same time, other conclusions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine's ruling remain in force.

Thus, the Grand Chamber concluded that after the ECHR established a violation of the principle of legal certainty, it is necessary to restore the violated rights of the applicant, but only to the extent that does not lead to double compensation.

The court reinstated the decisions on the unlawfulness of dismissal and the employee's reinstatement, leaving unchanged the other part of the Supreme Court of Ukraine's ruling, since the corresponding property compensation was already awarded by the ECHR.

Additionally, read another important position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court: new judicial review as a method of implementing restitutio in integrum.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, and on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.