Problematic aspects of the court’s renewal of deadlines for applying to the court, missed for good reasons, to resolve labor disputes

It is determined that the issue of the court’s renewal of deadlines missed for good reasons is relevant, as it is directly related to the realization of a person’s right to protection, which is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine. The author draws attention to the fact that in accordance with the Law of Ukraine «On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Optimization of Labor Relations» of July 1, 2022, Article 234 of the Labor Code of Ukraine has been reworded. Currently, the court may set the deadlines for applying to the court, specified in Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, if no more than one year has passed since the date of receipt of a copy of the order (order) on dismissal or written notification of the amounts accrued and paid to the employee upon dismissal (Article 116). This norm is mandatory and is not subject to extended interpretation. It is noted that the previous version of the article did not contain a one-year limitation. The author gives specific examples that may occur/occur in practice, in which a situation may arise when the plaintiff’s failure to meet the deadline for filing a lawsuit may be due to objective circumstances that are beyond his control. However, formally, even in these cases, the court must refuse to grant a motion to renew such terms if more than one year has passed since the date of receipt of a copy of the order (order) on dismissal or written notification of the amounts accrued and paid to the employee upon dismissal (Article 116). Attention is drawn to the problems of the administration of justice that occur today, in particular under martial law, which do not contribute to compliance with the principle of reasonable time limits. It follows that in today’s conditions, limiting the possibility of renewing a missed deadline for applying to court for a certain period does not always contribute to the protection of individual rights. The conclusion is formulated, according to which the imperative norm stipulated in Art. 234 of the Labor Code of Ukraine should be changed, because otherwise a person will be unlawfully deprived of the right guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine. Such changes may provide for the return of Art. 234 of the Labor Code of Ukraine to the previous version, or the possibility of renewing the missed deadline should relate to a period of more than one year.