1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The dispute concerned the refusal of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine to pay a one-time monetary allowance in the amount of 15,000,000 UAH to the family of a service member who died during martial law as a result of an illness (acute heart failure).
2. **Main arguments of the Court:**
– The Court officially departed from the legal position set forth in previous decisions of the Supreme Court (specifically in cases No. 600/548/23-a and No. 380/9868/23), recognizing them as not being based on correct legal interpretation.
– The Court emphasized that in order to receive the increased payment of 15 million UAH under Resolution No. 168, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between “death in action” (being killed) and “death as a result of a wound, concussion, injury, or mutilation.”
– It was established that death from an illness, even if related to military service, is not identical to death during hostilities within the meaning of paragraph 1 of clause 2 of Resolution No. 168.
– The Court stressed that a Military Medical Commission (VLC) finding regarding the link between an illness and the defense of the Motherland is not an automatic basis for the payment of 15 million UAH, unless a direct causal link between the death and a combat wound or injury is proven.
– Resolution No. 168 is a special wartime legal act that cannot be interpreted broadly, as this would lead to an unjustified burden on the state budget.
– In such cases, social protection for the family of the deceased is implemented through the general norms of Law No. 2011-XII and Procedure No. 975, rather than through the special “combat” payment.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court, which had denied the claim.
