Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared for you:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff challenged the decision of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine to refuse the payment of a one-time monetary assistance in the amount of UAH 15,000,000 in connection with the death of her husband, a serviceman, insisting on the application of the increased payment amount provided for by CMU Resolution No. 168.
2. **Arguments of the Court:** The Supreme Court noted that to receive assistance in the amount of UAH 15 million, it is not enough to merely establish the fact of the serviceman’s death during martial law or to have the Medical Commission (VLK) establish a causal link between a disease and the defense of the Motherland. The Court emphasized that CMU Resolution No. 168 provides for two clear grounds for such payment: direct death or death resulting from a wound, concussion, injury, or mutilation sustained during combat operations. In this case, the Supreme Court departed from its previous position set forth in cases No. 600/548/23-a and No. 380/9868/23, where an expansive interpretation of the grounds for payment was previously permitted. The Judicial Chamber clearly distinguished between general social guarantees (Law No. 2011-XII) and the special wartime payment, indicating that the latter cannot be applied to cases of death solely from diseases without a proven causal link to combat injuries. Since the case files contained no evidence that the death occurred specifically as a result of a wound or injury, the court recognized as lawful the granting of assistance in the general amount (750 times the subsistence minimum) rather than the increased amount. Thus, the court emphasized that the conditions for receiving UAH 15 million are exhaustive and not subject to expansive interpretation.
3. **Decision of the Court:** The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense, set aside the decisions of the lower courts, and adopted a new decision denying the claims of PERSON_1.
