The following is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the lawfulness of the refusal by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine to pay a one-time monetary assistance (OMA) in the amount of UAH 15 million to the family of a deceased serviceman in accordance with CMU Resolution No. 168, instead of the paid assistance in the amount of 750 times the subsistence minimum.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Court departed from the previous legal position of the Supreme Court (in particular, set forth in cases No. 600/548/23-а and No. 380/9868/23), noting that the previous conclusions regarding the possibility of paying UAH 15 million in the event of death from any disease related to the defense of the Motherland are not based on correct legal application.
– The Court emphasized that Resolution No. 168 is an exceptional social guarantee of wartime, and therefore its provisions cannot be interpreted broadly.
– It was established that for the receipt of the increased payment (UAH 15 million), the death of the serviceman must be a direct consequence of a wound, concussion, injury, or mutilation received during combat operations.
– The mere fact that death occurred as a result of a disease related to the defense of the Motherland is not an automatic ground for the application of Clause 2 of Resolution No. 168.
– In this case, the courts did not establish a direct causal link between the death from the disease and the sustained wound or injury; therefore, there are no grounds for the payment of UAH 15 million.
– Consequently, the payment of OMA on general grounds in accordance with Law No. 2011-XII and Procedure No. 975 is lawful and sufficient under such circumstances.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court, which had refused to satisfy the claim.
