Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Determination of the amount of the one-time financial assistance to family members of a serviceman who died as a result of a disease related to the defense of the Motherland (UAH 15 million under the “wartime” Resolution No. 168 or the 750-fold subsistence minimum under the general procedure of Resolution No. 975).
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Supreme Court, sitting as a judicial chamber, departed from previous legal positions that allowed for a broad interpretation of the “wartime” Resolution No. 168. The Court emphasized that the right to a payment in the amount of UAH 15 million arises only in the event of the death of a soldier or a death occurring as a result of a wound, contusion, injury, or mutilation sustained while defending the state. A conclusion by a Military Medical Commission stating that the death occurred as a result of a “disease related to the defense of the Motherland” is not, in itself, an automatic basis for receiving the increased payment. The Court clarified that the concepts of “death in action” (being killed) and “death as a result of a disease” have different legal meanings. Since in this case death resulted from cardiovascular failure rather than a combat injury, the application of the provision regarding UAH 15 million is unfounded. Thus, the court clearly distinguished between social guarantees for cases of combat losses and cases of death from general illnesses during military service.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the appellate court, denying the plaintiff’s claim for the payment of UAH 15 million.
