1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The Plaintiff, being a military serviceman seconded to a civilian higher education institution, attempted to compel the university through the court to pay him additional remuneration in the amount of UAH 30,000 for the period of martial law, as provided for by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court established that the legal status of military personnel seconded to state institutions and organizations is regulated by the special Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 104, which provides for a different procedure for the payment of monetary support compared to those serving directly in military units.
* A key factor was the reference to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in the exemplary case No. 640/13029/22, which clearly states that the effect of Resolution No. 168 regarding the payment of the “combat” UAH 30,000 does not apply to seconded military personnel.
* The court emphasized that the monetary support for such persons is paid at the expense of the institutions to which they are seconded and is based on salaries for positions in these institutions, rather than on general rules for military units.
* It is recorded in the decision that the Judicial Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its ruling dated March 19, 2026, officially departed from previous conclusions (in cases No. 320/2090/23 and No. 320/10293/22), which previously allowed for a broader interpretation of the right of seconded persons to this payment.
* The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument regarding being under the “operational subordination” of another military body, noting that this does not change the legal status of a seconded person and the procedure for their financing.
* As a result, the court concluded that the Plaintiff has no legal grounds for receiving the specified remuneration, as it is a stimulating payment intended specifically for those who directly perform combat missions as part of military formations.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court left the Plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied, and the decision of the appellate court, which denied the satisfaction of the claim, remained unchanged.
