The mayor illegally dismissed an employee — may compensate payments from his own pocket: position of the Supreme Court's Grand Chamber

The dispute over recovering property damage from the mayor caused by the payment of average earnings for the period of forced absence due to the unlawful dismissal of an employee (the illegality of which has already been established by a court decision in an administrative case), in the order of recourse, is a private law matter and is subject to consideration in civil proceedings.

This conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court.

Circumstances of case No. 334/8491/24

The prosecutor, on behalf of the city military administration and city council, filed a claim against the mayor for recovery of damages in the order of recourse. The claim was motivated by the fact that due to the illegal order of dismissal of the employee, the budget paid average earnings for the period of forced absence based on a court decision.

The court of first instance satisfied the claim.

The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance and closed the proceedings in the case, considering that the dispute is of a public-law nature and should be considered under administrative proceedings.

The Supreme Court's Grand Chamber overturned the appellate court's ruling and sent the case for a new hearing to the appellate court.

Conclusions of the Supreme Court

The right of access to justice is one of the fundamental human rights. It is provided for in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified by Ukraine.

The concept of a "court established by law" concerns not only the legal basis for the existence of a court but also its compliance with the rules regulating its activities (paragraph 24 of the European Court of Human Rights decision dated July 20, 2006, in the case "Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine," applications No. 29458/04 and No. 29465/04).

According to paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention, the right to a court hearing means the right of every person to apply to a court and the right for their case to be heard and decided by a court.

The above gives grounds to conclude that a "court established by law" includes the concept of the court's jurisdiction as defined by procedural law.

The Supreme Court's Grand Chamber noted that the appellate court made an erroneous conclusion that the dispute should be considered under administrative proceedings.

When determining the subject-matter jurisdiction of cases, courts should proceed from the essence of the right and/or interest for the protection of which the person applied, the claims made, the nature of the disputed legal relations, the content and legal nature of the circumstances of the case, and not only from the composition of the parties involved.

The plaintiff's right (which is the city military administration and city council) to compensation for damage caused by the illegal dismissal of an employee from the held position is enshrined in Articles 134 and 237 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, which the prosecutor referred to in the claim.

According to these provisions, officials responsible for the illegal dismissal of an employee bear material liability for the full amount of damage caused by the payment of average earnings for the period of forced absence.

The Supreme Court's Grand Chamber explained that when applying material liability for the full amount of damage under paragraph 8 of Article 134 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, courts should bear in mind that this law imposes the obligation to compensate damage caused to an enterprise, institution, or organization in connection with payment to an illegally dismissed or illegally transferred employee for the period of forced absence or the time of performing lower-paid work, on the responsible officials whose order or directive caused the dismissal or transfer in violation of the law or delayed the execution of the court decision on reinstatement.

Thus, labor legislation does not contain additional grounds for compensation of property damage from responsible officials whose order or directive caused the dismissal of an employee in violation of the law or delayed the execution of the court decision on reinstatement.

The Supreme Court's Grand Chamber emphasized that in this case, the issue of the lawfulness of the employee's dismissal is not subject to resolution, since the illegality of the mayor's order has already been established in the administrative case. The subject of the dispute is exclusively compensation for damages in the order of recourse.

Referring to the above, the Supreme Court's Grand Chamber concluded that given the subject of the dispute, the nature of the legal relations, and the method of protection, the dispute is private law and is subject to consideration under the rules of civil proceedings.

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