“Parliament is proposed by the draft Law on Amendments to Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine on ensuring the right of application of an unlimited period of appeal to the court with a claim for recovery of his salary dated August 20, 2025 No. 13664. What changes in the Labor”, – WRITE ON: ua.news
Parliament was proposed by the draft Law on Amendments to Article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine on ensuring the right of application of an unlimited period of appeal to the employee with a claim for recovery of his salary dated August 20, 2025 No. 13664.
What changes in the Labor Code offer the Bill No. 13664
This bill aimed at changing Article 233 of the Labor Code (Labor Code) is an attempt to resolve an ancient legal conflict that created uncertainty in labor disputes. Its purpose, as stated in the explanatory note, is to bring the Labor Code to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, the Supreme Court of Ukraine for not restriction by any term of the employee’s appeal to the court with a claim for accrual and recovery of his salary in case of violation of the legislation on remuneration.
At first glance, the initiative is correct and logical. It is aimed at strengthening the protection of the constitutional right to work for work, which is important for Ukrainians. However, a deeper analysis shows that when solving one problem, this bill risks creating another.
The history of legal conflict: from Soviet terms to decisions of the CCU
For decades, Article 233 of the Labor Code has set a short time to go to court: three months for most labor disputes and one month for dismissal cases. It is a Soviet heritage that prioritized the stability of economic activity over individual rights.
The turning point was the decision of the CCU of October 15, 2013 No. 8-rp/2013. The court not only expanded the concept of “salary”, including all the payments (bonuses, compensation, holidays, etc.), but also ruled that the right to recover them is not limited to any term. This decision, having the force of law, has changed legal regulation, even without formal amendments to the Code.
However, in July 2022, within the framework of “optimization of labor relations” during martial law, the legislator adopted Law No. 2352-IX, which returned three months to go to court, including the recovery of all amounts due to the dismissal. As a consequence, there was a direct contradiction between the current law and obligatory to comply with the CCU decision.
This conflict had to be decided by the judiciary. The Supreme Court, based on the principle of irreversibility of the law in time, formed a unified approach to new changes in legislation, which restrict the term of appeal to court with labor spores up to three months, namely: such changes do not extend to events that took place until July 19, 2022 (the decision of the Supreme Court of April 06, 2023.
It is this confusion that should eliminate the current bill. And that is his undeniable positive. The adoption of the law will restore the hierarchy of legal norms, strengthen the guarantees for the employee as a weaker party of employment and make the legal field more predictable for courts and members of the dispute.
Underwater Stones of Bill No. 13664
However, the bill has negative consequences. Complete cancellation of limitation for such a wide category of disputes is an important step that offsets the appointment of this legal institute. The statute of limitations is not just a formality. It is a mechanism that ensures the stability of legal relations, protects participants from “eternal” claims and makes it possible to have a fair trial on the basis of evidence that has not been lost over time. The practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has repeatedly confirmed that the establishment of reasonable limitation periods is a legitimate goal that meets the principles of a fair court.
The greatest problem created by the bill is a direct conflict with the regulatory terms of storage of documents. The legislation obliges employers to store primary accounting and personnel documents concerning salaries for three or five years (a list of standard documents created during the activities of state and local self -government bodies, other legal entities, indicating the terms of storage of documents, approved by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.
Vacation or working time accounts have even shorter storage.
Positive consequences for employees
Imagine the situation: 10 years after his release, the former employee sue, claiming that he was underpaying part of the bonus. The employer who acted honestly and legally destroyed the documents for that period is in a legal trap. It is deprived of any opportunity to prove the fact of full payment. This creates the presumption of the employer’s guilt and makes his protection virtually impossible.
Possible risks to business and investors
The consequences for the business climate can be devastating. The endless “tail” of potential obligations makes it impossible to hold a reliable financial audit. This paralyzes investment activity, because when buying a company, the investor will never be able to adequately evaluate her hidden debts to former workers in his entire existence. Bankruptcy procedures will also be significantly complicated.
European practice
The experience of leading European countries testifies to a more balanced approach. In Germany, the total limitation period is 3 years, and employment contracts often set even shorter, several months for the requirements. In France and Poland, a three -year term also applies for salary requirements. These legal systems, ensuring a high level of protection of employees, do not abandon the principle of legal certainty.
Therefore, by correcting one legislative mistake, the bill makes another, systematic. Instead of blindly codifying the decision of the CCU, which was adopted in a specific historical and legal context, the legislator should approach the problem comprehensively.
What are the alternative solutions
A more wise and far -sighted step would not be a complete cancellation, but the establishment of a special, prolonged, but finite limitation of limitation for the requirements of wage collection. A three -year term is optimal. Such a decision would have a number of advantages: it would balance the labor legislation with the general three -year term established by the Civil Code, would correspond to European practice and correlate with the terms of storage of accounting documents. This would allow the fair balance of interests: the employee would have enough time to protect his rights and the employer would not be at risk of “eternal” lawsuits.
Thus, this bill solves an urgent problem, but neglects long -term potential consequences.
AO Barristers lawyer Ruslan Gutsol