Call Leave a request
Damage from “worker’s injury” is a reason not to pay court fees!

Damage from “worker’s injury” is a reason not to pay court fees!

The Ukrainian Supreme Court spoke about the obligation to pay legal costs in cases of compensation by persons who suffered material damage as a result of injury at work.

By the decision in case No. 127/20705 / 16-c of 06/11/2019, the Supreme Court “freed” such persons from paying the court fee!

Background of conclusion and essence of requirements

The postman applied to the court with a claim against the employer – “Ukrposhta”. She wanted to receive compensation for the injury – compensation for material damage.

While on duty – delivering mail, she fell and suffered an industrial injury – fractures in several places. She was treated for more than 7 months. Despite this, she was not given a disability group. MSEK recorded her 25% loss of working capacity.

The victim paid for all treatment at her own expense. The Social Insurance Fund reimbursed her UAH 300. To plaintiff, in order for the injured hand to work, had to undergo an operation in a foreign clinic.

She went to court with the requirement to collect compensation from the employer in the form of a one-time payment of UAH 500,000. and a monthly lifetime compensation of 3 times the minimum wage.

“The court dismissed the applicant’s claims, referring to the lack of evidence. The appeal did not even consider the claim – she returned the application and declared it not filed on the grounds of Part 2 of Art. 297 CPCU – due to non-payment of the court fee”.

The plaintiff appealed to the Ukrainian Supreme Court. She pointed out that persons who have suffered material damage as a result of injury related to production, confirmed by the relevant act of the commission, are exempted from paying court fees on the basis of paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 5 Law of Ukraine “On court fee”.

Conclusions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on this case

According to the law, “unpaid” appeals are not considered by the court – they remain without movement. The refusal must be legally justified.

The refusal in this claim was motivated by the fact that the claim was filed against the state-owned enterprise for compensation for material damage due to an accident, therefore, the rule of clause 2 p. 1 tbsp. 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On court fee” is not applied, but this is an erroneous conclusion, since …

According to clause 2 of part 1 of article 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On court fee”, plaintiffs are exempted from paying court fees in all courts – in cases of compensation for harm caused by death, injury or other damage to health.

In case No. 127/20705/16-c of 11/06/2019, the citizen asked for the recovery of material damage from the employer precisely because of the injury that arose in the performance of labor duties.

Consequently, the conclusions of the appeal are incorrect, the case is subject to examination and must be considered.

The conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in this situation is legal assistance that allows citizens to reach victory “in the war for compensation for damage from the employer”, and not be left crippled with 300 UAH from Social Insurance.

20.02.2020

442

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
Court Representation: The Art of Defense and Advocacy in Court

Court representation is an integral part of the legal system, where a lawyer acts as a client’s representative before the court. It is a complex process that requires the lawyer to possess special skills and knowledge, as the successful outcome of the case depends on their competence. Responsibilities of a Lawyer during Court Representation A […]

Appealing a bank decision based on financial monitoring results

In recent years, the tightening of financial monitoring requirements has led to an increase in the number of cases where banks stop spending operations on an account or refuse to serve customers, citing “establishing an unacceptably high risk and terminating business relations.” For many customers, especially legal entities and individual entrepreneurs, such decisions have serious […]

Civil marriage: showdown because of the apartment bought in it

Family showdown is an eternal topic! Even the array of family legislation and court practice accumulated over decades does not contain answers to all questions regarding family relations! The Supreme Court once again had to figure out whether or not the testimonies of witnesses certified by a notary are considered legal confirmation of a civil […]

The new owner is not entitled to evict the debtor from mortgage housing

The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered the case on the eviction of the former owner (debtor of the bank) from the apartment purchased (by the new owner). A relevant legal conclusion has been published, informative for real estate buyers and bank borrowers. Thus, a new non-owner who has bought “risky” real estate from a mortgagee […]

CEC-Supreme Court of Ukraine: what should the economic court find out before rejecting the claim?

The Joint Chamber of the CEC of the Supreme Court of Ukraine spoke out on the motivation for refusals to consider claims. In the ruling in case No. 910/6642/18 of 06/14/19, the courts were explained what exactly they should find out before deciding to dismiss the claim when considering economic disputes in the context of […]

Have you built a house? Putting it into operation correctly!

The authorities continue to make sure that citizens provide themselves with housing! Not so long ago, the Ministry of Regional Development explained the nuances of a simplified procedure for the construction of a residential building, and now a detailed procedure for putting private houses into operation has appeared on the official website. Analyzing the process! […]

Address

01133, Kyiv, blvd. Lesi Ukrainky 26 (block L26), office 613

Email

info@grandliga.com.ua

Phone number

+380443395088

We work

Schedule: from 10:00 to 18:00
Weekend: Sunday

Make a route