Submit your application


The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered case No. 699/640/18 (production No. 61-17310sv19) and on 04.12.2019 formed a legal conclusion, which “put in place” the employer who dismissed the employee under the “absenteeism” article. He counted as a truancy the day when she underwent a medical examination.


The military unit’s employee filed a lawsuit to reinstate her at work and to pay her compensatio for the time for her forced absence from work. In court, she stated that she was illegally fired for absenteeism from two positions (she worked as a general practitioner and part-time in the same place of job family doctor). She was dismissed illegally, because on that day, which the employer considered absenteeism, she passed a medical examination and the employer knew about this fact.


The “retire” order was declared unlawful and canceled. The plaintiff was left at work with an order to immediately reinstate her in both positions. Also, the court ordered the employer to pay her the lost salary during the forced absence. The motivated decision was the “respectfulness” of the reason for the absence.


This court took into account the respondent’s arguments that the trial court did not apply “military” law in its consideration of the case, but resolved the dispute on the basis of “normal” labor standards. The snag was that the plaintiff was on vacation and went straight out of it not to work, but went to undergo a medical examination related to her new job, for which she got a job. The fact that she warned the management about the absence in the telephone mode, the appellate court considered an insufficient argument.


“According to the law, absence on work place due to medical examination with“ warning of the employer and documentary confirmation ”cannot be considered absenteeism. Accordingly, it cannot be a reason for dismissal on the grounds of clause 4 of part 1 of article 40 of the Labor Code, both for ordinary and for workers liable for military service.”

Insofar as:

  1. According to clause 4 of part 1 of article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, an “indefinite” labor agreement, as well as an urgent before the completion of the action, can be terminated by the employer solely because of the absence of absenteeism – absence from the workplace without good reason for more than 3 hours.
  2. Clause 24 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of Ukraine dated 06.11.1992 No. 9 “On the practice of consideration of labor disputes by courts” states that when considering claims of persons dismissed under clause 4 of part 1 of Article 40 of the Labor Code on reinstatement at work, the courts must proceed from the fact that absenteeism is a complete or three-hour absence of an employee from the workplace without good reason.



Enforcement of arbitration awards in the Russian Federation – we collect debts from legal entities. Theory and practice

Foreword! Collection of overdue debts from legal entities is a multi-stage and multi-variant procedure. Consider all the stages and options step by step. The material is divided into separate blocks so that everyone who reads it can easily get acquainted with exactly what he needs (at the same time, it is not forbidden to interrupt […]

BC-SCU should regulate the right to exchange land shares

The procedure for resolving land disputes in Ukraine can be called “order” with a stretch! Due to the endlessly extended land moratorium, controversial issues in the field of land relations arise systematically. In fact, the presence of registration of ownership of land implies that it is the property of a specific person with all the […]

Contractual obligations and installment of court decision

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, by its legal opinion in case No. 916/190/18 of 06/04/19, answered the question, does the installment plan for the execution of the judgment terminate the contractual obligation? According to the published conclusion, the installment plan, in fact, only affects the procedure for the enforcement of the […]

Ban on travel abroad: aspects of imposition and removal!

CPCU prohibits debtors from leaving the country! This means that when trying to go abroad, an individual may suddenly find out that it is he who is prohibited from doing this, since this restrictive measure has been applied to him, established as an enforcement of the court decision. “Surprise”! Debt payment does not automatically open […]

“Unjustifiably acquired funds” and “advance payment” are different concepts

The Supreme Court of Ukraine, by a resolution on case No. 910/21154 / 17 of 15.02.2019, distinguished between the concepts of “advance payment” and “groundlessly acquired funds”! Legal conclusion promulgated Initially! One legal entity applied to the economic court with a claim against another legal entity to recover the prepayment amount under a contract for […]

Correcting errors in wills is not the responsibility of the courts

Illiteracy and inattention are not vices if mistakes can be corrected! If a mistake is made in the will, then there is no one to correct it! And not a single court is authorized to do this, which was established by the Supreme Court of Ukraine following the consideration of the inheritance dispute in case […]