[ad_1]
It endorsed the mayor’s appeal and revoked the obligation to reimburse 22 thousand. damage in euros.
The public interest prosecutor sought compensation after the court order of the Širvintos district municipality mayor to dismiss the director of the primary health care center in 2016 was declared illegal by court decision and she was awarded the average salary for the time of forced absence. .
The prosecutor said that the institution had suffered losses precisely because of the illegal ordinance.
“There are grounds to claim compensation for this damage from the person who caused it: Š.v.
Meanwhile, Ž.Pinskuvienė stated that the mere adoption of an illegal decision is not grounds for claiming compensation for property damage. According to her, the chief physician was not removed from office by the employer, but by the founder, whose responsibility is not subject to the norms of labor law and material responsibility.
The Court of First Instance granted the prosecutor’s request in 2018, but the expanded panel of judges of the higher court, who heard the case on appeal, emphasized that the court had no right to change the basis of the claim on its own initiative and may not award damages.
“The legal relationship between Širvintos PSPC, as a municipal public health institution, and the mayor of the Širvintos district municipality after the adoption of the Ordinance on the dismissal of the chief physician of Širvintos PSPC, contrary to the statement of the prosecutor and approved by the Court of first instance. Therefore, the norms that regulate material liability do not apply to the relationships specified within the limits of this administrative case, evaluating them according to the subject matter and basis of the request made by the prosecutor, that is, they do not it is about protection of violated rights in this administrative case.
As a judge, the panel noted that Ž.Pinskuvienė, by removing the head of the polyclinic, acted not as a person exercising internal administration, but as an institution that implements the rights of the owner of this public institution.
Having assessed these and other circumstances, the panel reversed the lower court’s decision and confirmed the mayor’s complaint and rejected the prosecutor’s request.
[ad_2]
