The military unit tried to cancel the payment of UAH 173,000 to a serviceman but lost the right to appeal due to the court fee

The Supreme Court, composed of judges of the Cassation Administrative Court, considered case No. 360/633/25 regarding the restoration of the deadline for appealing an administrative court decision in a dispute over the payment of indexed monetary allowance to a serviceman.

The court examined whether martial law, the specifics of the military unit's activities, and the lack of budget funding for paying the court fee could be recognized as valid reasons for missing the deadline to file an appeal.

Case summary

A serviceman filed a lawsuit against the military unit, seeking to recognize the unit's inaction in not calculating and paying the indexed monetary allowance as unlawful and to oblige the unit to make the appropriate calculations and payments.

The Luhansk District Administrative Court partially granted the claim. The court found the military unit's inaction unlawful regarding the non-accrual and non-payment of the indexed monetary allowance for the period from March 1, 2018, to May 8, 2022, and ordered the unit to calculate and pay the difference in the indexation amounting to UAH 173,064.65 with the corresponding deductions and compensation for personal income tax. The other parts of the claim were denied.

Disagreeing with the decision, the military unit filed an appeal. However, it did not attach a document confirming payment of the court fee. The appellate court refused to postpone the payment and left the appeal without movement, setting a deadline to correct the deficiencies.

Within the set deadline, the military unit paid only part of the court fee, so the appeal was returned. On the same day, it filed the appeal again, but by that time the appeal deadline had already expired.

In justifying the motion to restore the deadline, the military unit argued that the initial appeal was filed on time and its return was due to non-payment of the court fee. It also noted that the unit is funded from the state budget and depends on the receipt of funds, which under martial law are primarily directed to support combat units. Additionally, the appellant pointed to the introduction of martial law and the need to approve the allocation of funds through the budget manager.

The First Appellate Administrative Court refused to restore the deadline for appeal and denied opening appellate proceedings.

The court reasoned that state authorities have the same procedural rights and obligations as other participants in the process and must act timely and in good faith. The appellate court stated that organizational difficulties in the activities of a public authority and the lack of budget funding for paying the court fee cannot be recognized as valid reasons for missing the appeal deadline.

The court also emphasized that the mere fact of timely filing the initial appeal and its subsequent return due to failure to correct deficiencies does not grant the right to re-appeal the court decision at any time after the statutory deadline has expired.

Legal conclusions of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted that the exercise of the right to appeal is carried out in the manner and under the conditions established by procedural law. Procedural deadlines aim to ensure the timeliness of court proceedings, proper procedural discipline, and legal certainty in public-law relations. They are the same for all participants and related to the principle of equality before the law and the court.

The court stressed that valid reasons for missing a procedural deadline can only be circumstances that are objectively insurmountable, independent of the person's will, arose within the missed deadline, made timely procedural action impossible or significantly complicated it, and are confirmed by proper evidence.

The panel of judges agreed with the appellate court's conclusion that the mere fact of timely filing the initial appeal is not sufficient grounds for restoring the deadline after its return. The right to re-file an appeal is not unconditional and can only be exercised within the statutory deadline or after its expiration if valid reasons exist.

The Supreme Court specifically emphasized that the introduction of martial law alone is not sufficient grounds for restoring a procedural deadline. Such circumstances must be assessed in each case considering the direct causal link between martial law and the impossibility of timely procedural action. A general reference to martial law without specific circumstances and proper evidence cannot be considered sufficient justification for restoring the deadline.

The court also stated that organizational difficulties in the activities of a public authority or features of its internal work cannot automatically be recognized as valid reasons for missing a deadline. It must be proven that such circumstances objectively made timely court application impossible. Without such proof, it concerns only the internal organization of the institution's work, not external insurmountable obstacles under procedural law.

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court that the lack of budget funding for paying the court fee does not confirm the existence of objective and insurmountable obstacles to timely court application. Such circumstances cannot affect compliance with procedural deadlines and are not valid reasons for missing them.

Furthermore, the court rejected arguments about incorrect determination of the court fee amount, noting that the subject of cassation review was not the legality of returning the initial appeal but the lawfulness of denying the opening of appellate proceedings due to lack of valid reasons for missing the deadline. Disagreement with the court fee calculation itself does not refute the fact of missing the deadline or prove the existence of circumstances objectively preventing timely court application.

As a result of the review, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the First Appellate Administrative Court's ruling refusing to open appellate proceedings unchanged.

The ruling comes into legal force from the date of its adoption, is final, and not subject to appeal.

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