The Supreme Court explained why the court refused the military unit to open appellate proceedings
An individual filed a lawsuit against a military unit, requesting to recognize the inaction regarding the payment of the indexation of monetary allowance as unlawful.
The court of first instance satisfied the claim. The military unit filed an appeal against the decision of the district administrative court and a motion to postpone the payment of the court fee.
The appellate court denied the motion and left the appeal without movement, granting a deadline to correct deficiencies. Later, the court refused to open appellate proceedings because the appellant did not submit a motion to restore the deadline for appealing the decision within the time set by the court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
A party to the case who was not served the decision on the day it was made has the right to restore the missed deadline for appeal by submitting a motion to restore such a deadline simultaneously with the appeal.
It is important that, unlike a procedural deadline set by the court, which can be extended either upon the application of a party or on the court's initiative, a procedural deadline established by law can be restored exclusively upon the application of a party to the case.
More details and the text of the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court in case No. 440/2847/24 can be found at the link.
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 informed about the most important events.
