A military unit cannot report late: the court clarified the deadlines for implementing decisions on payments to servicemen

The issue of enforcing court decisions is the final stage of judicial protection and an integral part of the right to a fair trial. In the ruling dated June 18, 2026, in case No. 200/8673/25, the First Administrative Court of Appeal considered a matter that has become especially relevant after the introduction of the mechanism of judicial control over the enforcement of court decisions — how exactly the deadline for submitting a report on the execution of a court decision by a public authority should be determined.

The dispute arose regarding payments to a serviceman, but the conclusions formulated by the court are significant for all categories of administrative cases where judicial control over the enforcement of court decisions is applied.

Recall that earlier the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" already analyzed mechanisms of judicial control in civil, commercial, and administrative proceedings and their importance for ensuring proper enforcement of court decisions.

Circumstances of the case

Previously, the Donetsk District Administrative Court partially satisfied the claim of a serviceman against two military units and recognized unlawful several instances of non-accrual and non-payment of due amounts of monetary allowance, indexation, compensation for unused leave, health improvement assistance, and other payments.

After the appeal review, the decision remained in force for most of the satisfied claims.

In May 2026, the plaintiff's representative filed a motion to establish judicial control over the enforcement of the decision and requested to oblige the military units to submit a report on its execution within ten days.

The court of first instance agreed on the necessity of establishing judicial control but set the deadline for submitting reports until August 14, 2026.

Disagreeing with such a long deadline, the plaintiff's representative filed an appeal, believing that the defendants should have reported on the execution of the decision within ten days.

Position of the appellate court

When considering the case, the appellate court focused on the constitutional principle of the binding nature of court decisions and the role of judicial control as a mechanism to ensure their real enforcement.

The appellate court noted that judicial control is one of the most effective means to ensure the enforcement of court decisions.

The appellate court pointed out that the main purpose of judicial control over the enforcement of decisions in administrative cases is primarily the realization of the main tasks of administrative justice in the administration of justice by administrative courts, since it is not limited to issuing a court decision but also involves its enforcement.

Every judicial process must end with the implementation of the court decision in the disputed legal relations between its parties.

The court paid special attention to the interpretation of Article 382-1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, which regulates the deadlines for submitting reports on the enforcement of court decisions.

According to part three of Article 382-1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the deadline set by the court for submitting a report on the enforcement of a court decision must be sufficient for its preparation. A sufficient deadline is one that is at least ten calendar days from the day the public authority receives the relevant ruling and does not exceed three months.

Based on part five of Article 382-1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, a court ruling refusing to satisfy the application may be appealed to the appellate court. The appellate court's ruling on the review of the ruling is final and not subject to appeal.

The appellate court stated that the analysis of the provisions regarding the duration of the deadline for establishing the obligation of a public authority to submit a report on the enforcement of a court decision indicates that the court may oblige the public authority to submit a report within a sufficient deadline for its execution.

This deadline is up to 3 months but not less than 10 days from the moment of receiving the ruling establishing judicial control over the enforcement of the court decision.

Thus, setting a specific deadline is a discretionary power of the court within the limits defined by law.

At the same time, the court noted that the legal basis for obliging the defendant to submit a report on the enforcement of the court decision is the presence of objective grounds, confirmed by proper and admissible evidence, to believe that without such judicial control the court decision will remain unenforced or its enforcement will require significant efforts.

The appellate court explained that even when judicial control over the enforcement of such decisions is established, when obliging a public authority to submit a report and setting the deadline for its submission, the court must take into account the specifics of the duties imposed by the court decision and the ability of the public authority to fulfill them.

Evaluating the appellant's arguments regarding the necessity of establishing a minimum ten-day deadline, the court paid attention to the content of the decision subject to enforcement.

The appellate court indicated that, as evidenced by the court decision in the case, the defendants need a certain period to calculate the indexation difference of the plaintiff's monetary allowance, accrue the amount of debt, and pay this debt to the plaintiff's card account in an authorized bank.

Additionally, the court considered the specifics of the defendants' status.

The court noted that military units are budgetary institutions without their own income, third-class budget managers, meaning funds are used only for their intended purpose and within specifically established limits allocated by the relevant managers.

The panel of judges also took into account the conditions of martial law and the functions of military units in ensuring the defense of the state.

Separately, the court rejected the arguments about the necessity of immediate enforcement of the decision and stated that it is unacceptable for the plaintiff's representative to refer to norms regulating immediate enforcement of court decisions, since the decision in this case did not resolve the issue of recovering components of monetary allowance from the defendants in favor of the plaintiff in the respective amounts; therefore, this decision does not belong to the category of cases where the decision is enforced immediately.

As a result of the case review, the appellate court partially satisfied the appeal. The panel concluded that the deadline set by the court of first instance is excessive and not properly justified. At the same time, there are no grounds to establish a minimum ten-day deadline either.

In summary, the court shortened the deadline for submitting the report from August 14, 2026, to July 20, 2026, and clarified that the report must be submitted taking into account the appellate court ruling dated April 15, 2026.

Thus, the appellate court confirmed that the deadline for submitting a report on the execution of a decision is determined taking into account the circumstances of the case and the possibility of its enforcement.

In fact, this ruling is one of the examples of forming the practice of applying Article 382-1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, introduced by Law No. 4094-IX. Earlier, the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" thoroughly analyzed the changes that reformed the mechanism of judicial control over the enforcement of court decisions and introduced the procedure for submitting a report on the enforcement of a court decision by a public authority.

Additionally, read another position of the First Administrative Court of Appeal regarding judicial control over enforcement of decisions, in which the court clarified the limits of applying the procedure for correcting typos in rulings imposing fines on the head of a public authority.

You can also find more detailed analysis of court decisions regarding imposing fines in 2026 on officials of Territorial Centers for Compensation for failure to enforce court decisions and inactivity during their enforcement.

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