1. The subject matter of the dispute concerns the lawfulness of the actions of the military commissariat regarding the calculation and payment of indexation of monetary allowance, one-time financial assistance upon discharge, and compensation for the loss of a portion of income due to the violation of payment deadlines to a serviceman.
2. The Court, when analyzing the issue of compensation for the loss of a portion of income, departed from previous practice that required the mandatory actual receipt of income prior to filing a claim with the court, and took into account the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 07.05.2026. The Court distinguished payments into periodic (indexation) and one-time (one-time assistance, health improvement assistance) payments, noting that compensation for the loss of a portion of income applies only to systematic payments. Regarding the one-time financial assistance upon discharge, the court confirmed that the period of prior service is not taken into account if the person had already acquired the right to such payment upon their previous discharge, regardless of whether it was actually received. The Court clearly distinguished between the concepts of “acquisition of a right” and “exercise of a right” to a payment, indicating that the acquisition of the right itself is the determining factor for the application of exceptions under the law. The Court also emphasized that claims for compensation for the loss of a portion of income regarding indexation are not premature, even if the principal amount has not yet been paid, as this right can be protected within the scope of a single lawsuit. In conclusion, the court recognized that indexation has a systematic nature and is therefore subject to compensation, whereas one-time payments are not.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, set aside the decisions of the lower courts regarding the refusal to calculate compensation for the loss of a portion of income on the amount of unpaid indexation, and rendered a new decision granting the claim in this part, while leaving the other conclusions of the courts unchanged.
