Under the circumstances of the case, the person should have been transferred from the Territorial State Labor Inspectorate in Kyiv to the Territorial State Labor Inspectorate in Kharkiv Oblast after his dismissal from the Territorial State Labor Inspection on Labor in Kyiv.

As a result of the trial, the court closed the proceedings in the case on the existence of a decision (which has already become valid) in a dispute between the same parties about the same subject and for the same reasons. The court of appeal agreed to such a decision.

It should be noted that the decisions referred to by the courts concerned the recognition of illegal acts and the collection of wages during the forced absenteeism, in which the parties were the same persons. Thus, in this case, the plaintiff requested the court to recover wages from the State Service of Ukraine for Labor in the Kharkiv region during forced forgiveness and to recognize the illegal actions of the State Civil Service of Ukraine on labor issues in the Kharkiv region in terms of avoiding the conclusion of an employment contract with a person, invited by the consent of the chiefs to work in the order of transfer from the Territorial State Labor Inspection in Kyiv to work in the Territorial State Labor Inspectorate in Kharkiv Oblast after his appointment to work with the Territorial State Inspectorate of Labor in Kiev.

Also, the courts reminded of the existence of a ruling of the Supreme Court in a civil case on a claim of the person to the State Labor Inspection in the Kharkiv region for the compensation of non-pecuniary damage by avoiding the defendant from concluding an employment contract with the chiefs on the acceptance of a job in the order of transfer from the Territorial State Inspection on matters Labor in Kyiv to the Territorial State Labor Inspectorate in Kharkiv Oblast after his dismissal from the Territorial State Labor Inspectorate in Kyiv in connection with the transfer on the basis of paragraph 5 of part. 1 item 36 Labor Code of Ukraine.

However, the Supreme Court did not agree with the decisions of the courts of the previous instances and sent the case for a fresh consideration to the court of first instance.

We remind that in accordance with paragraph 3 of part. 1 item 255 of the Civil Code of Ukraine the court by its ruling closes the proceedings in case if the decision of the court or the court ruling on the closure of proceedings in the case has been legally valid, passed or decided on a dispute between the same parties, on the same subject and on the same grounds, or judicial an order that has become legally binding on the same requirements.

However, the closure of proceedings in a case is possible, provided that the decision which has become valid, is identical to the claim, which is being considered, that is, the parties are the same, the subject and the grounds of the lawsuits.

According to the position of the Supreme court, claims are considered identical if they simultaneously coincide with the parties, the grounds and subject of the dispute, that is, when the lawsuits are completely identical in the composition of the participants in the civil process, substantive requirements and circumstances justifying the appeal to the court.

Therefore, the non-identity of at least one of these factors does not prevent a repeated appeal to the court of interested parties for resolving the dispute.

The Supreme Court noticed that, when determining the basis of a claim as an element of its content, the court should check, on the basis of what,  facts (circumstances) and the rules of the law the plaintiff asks for the protection of his right.

The grounds of the claim, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, are not already considered in the civil case and in this case, since the dispute between the parties in the cases arose from different grounds (the ruling of the Sun from 05/22/2019 in case № 640/7778/18).