1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of depriving a serviceman of additional monetary remuneration for the time he was in a state of alcohol intoxication, and, accordingly, the right of the wife of the deceased serviceman to receive this remuneration.
2. The court of cassation disagreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim, based on the fact that one of the grounds for depriving servicemen of additional remuneration is the establishment of the fact that they are in a state of alcohol intoxication. The Supreme Court emphasized that in the event of the death of a serviceman, his wife has the right only to the payment of monetary allowance due, but not received by him during his lifetime. The Court noted that in this case, it is not the fact of violation of military discipline by the deceased that is important, but the wife’s lack of right to receive the already deprived remuneration. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that she is applying for the receipt of the due but unpaid amount of additional monetary remuneration as an heir, since the payment was not accrued to the serviceman during his lifetime. The court of cassation emphasized that only specific amounts of payments that belonged to the testator during his lifetime and remained underpaid due to his death can be subject to inheritance.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, changing the decisions of the previous courts only in the reasoning part, leaving the decision to dismiss the claim in force.
