Supreme Court: Death of a Soldier from a Heart Attack Does Not Exclude Family's Right to 15 Million Hryvnias

Judicial practice regarding the payment of 15 million UAH to families of servicemen continues to develop. Particularly contentious remain cases where a soldier dies from illness during service, and the family insists that the death is directly related to the defense of the Fatherland.

In the ruling dated May 29, 2026, in case No. 300/1031/25, the Supreme Court, sitting as the Cassation Administrative Court, considered a dispute challenging the decision of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine to grant the mother of the deceased serviceman a one-time financial aid of 2,013,000 UAH instead of 15 million UAH.

This case is illustrative for practice as it raises the issue of proper investigation of the circumstances of the serviceman's death and establishing a causal link between the death and the performance of tasks related to state defense.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff's son served in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and directly participated in combat operations. He died during his service.

According to the medical death certificate and death certificate, the cause of death was acute myocardial infarction. At the same time, the documents indicated that the illness leading to death, as well as the cause of death, were related to the defense of the Fatherland.

The serviceman's mother applied to the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine for a one-time financial aid payment.

The Ministry of Defense commission granted her aid as the mother of a serviceman who died from an illness related to the defense of the Fatherland in the amount of 2,013,000 UAH, corresponding to 750 times the subsistence minimum as of 2023.

Disagreeing with this decision, the plaintiff went to court insisting that her son's death was related to the performance of military service duties during the defense of the state, and therefore she is entitled to a payment of 15 million UAH according to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 168.

The courts of first and appellate instances denied the claim. They reasoned that the death resulted from acute myocardial infarction, and the case materials contained no evidence that the serviceman received wounds, concussions, injuries, or disabilities that could have caused death.

Supreme Court's position

The issue of one-time financial aid payment in case of death of servicemen is regulated by Articles 16 - 16-4 of Law No. 2011-XII.

The Supreme Court noted that Law No. 2011-XII and paragraph 2 of item 5 of Procedure No. 975 establish that in case of death of a serviceman, the aid amount is set at 750 times the subsistence minimum established by law for able-bodied persons as of January 1 of the calendar year in which the death occurred.

The Court recalled that according to paragraph 1 of item 2 of Resolution No. 168, families of deceased persons listed in paragraph 1 of this resolution are paid a one-time financial aid of 15,000,000 UAH, which is distributed equally among all recipients specified in Article 16-1 of the Law of Ukraine "On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Their Families."

According to paragraph 6 of item 2 of Resolution No. 168, the payment of the one-time financial aid provided in this item is also made to families of persons listed in paragraph 1 of this resolution who died as a result of wounds (concussions, injuries, disabilities) received during the defense of the Fatherland during martial law, no later than one year after the wounds (concussions, injuries, disabilities).

Thus, the increased one-time aid amounting to 15,000,000 UAH under paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 168 is provided to families of servicemen only in two cases: 1) in case of the serviceman's death; 2) if the serviceman died as a result of wounds (concussions, injuries, disabilities) received during the defense of the Fatherland during martial law, no later than one year after the wounds (concussions, injuries, disabilities).

Unlike Law No. 2011-XII and Procedure No. 975, Resolution No. 168 contains a narrower list of grounds for payment of increased aid.

The Supreme Court specifically noted that the lower courts, when making their decisions, concluded that the cause of the soldier's death was not related to direct participation in measures related to the defense of the Fatherland, as they relied solely on the extract from the Military Medical Commission meeting protocol stating the cause of death as "acute myocardial infarction."

The Court pointed out that the extract also states that the cause of death was the illness that led to death, and the cause of death is indeed related to the defense of the Fatherland.

However, the courts did not consider these circumstances and did not evaluate them, despite these circumstances being the basis of the claim.

The Supreme Court also emphasized the need for a full clarification of the factual circumstances.

The Court indicated that to establish the circumstances of this case and ensure a fair resolution, the courts must determine whether the serviceman directly participated in measures to ensure national security and defense, repulse and deter armed aggression of the Russian Federation, ensuring their implementation, being directly in the areas and during the period of these measures, in activities necessary to ensure the defense of Ukraine, protection of the population's security, and state interests in connection with the Russian Federation's military aggression against Ukraine.

It is also necessary to clarify whether the serviceman was performing measures related to the defense of the Fatherland at the time of death, and whether his death is connected with his direct participation in measures to ensure national security and defense, repulse and deter armed aggression of the Russian Federation, and ensuring their implementation.

The Supreme Court stressed that in this case, the courts of first and appellate instances did not fulfill the duty of direct, comprehensive, full, and objective investigation of the case circumstances and legal assessment of all arguments of the parties, applying a formal approach to its resolution and violating the rules of official clarification of case circumstances.

Thus, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal of the serviceman's mother, overturned the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, and sent the case for a new trial.

The Supreme Court effectively emphasized that the conclusion about the absence of grounds for payment of 15 million UAH cannot be based solely on the indication in medical documents of the cause of death if other case materials contain information about the connection of the illness and death with the defense of the Fatherland.

More about the problems faced by families of deceased servicemen when confirming the fact of living together as one family can be read in the article of the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper".

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.