Military personnel can receive compensation even for items they did not actually receive during service: Supreme Court decision

Can a mobilized soldier receive money for uniforms and other material assets that belonged to him but were never issued during service? The Supreme Court in case No. 560/17635/24 emphasized: the non-issuance of property does not mean the loss of the right to compensation for its value.

The Supreme Court, composed of judges of the Cassation Administrative Court panel, concluded that mobilized servicemen do not lose the right to monetary compensation. The Court overturned the decisions of two instances that denied the soldier such compensation and sent the case for reconsideration.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff served in the military by conscription during mobilization in a military unit.

By order of the commander of the military unit dated August 19, 2024, he was discharged to the reserve due to health reasons. Subsequently, by order dated August 28, 2024, the serviceman was removed from the personnel lists and all types of provision.

After discharge, the former soldier applied to the command with a request for a certificate regarding the value of material assets that belonged to him before issuance, as well as for payment of monetary compensation for unreceived items. However, he received no response.

Considering this inaction unlawful, the plaintiff applied to the administrative court.

In the claim, the plaintiff requested:

• to recognize the inaction of the military unit regarding the non-accrual and non-payment of compensation for unreceived material assets as unlawful;
• to oblige the military unit to accrue and pay the appropriate compensation for the service period from January 15 to August 28, 2024.

The Khmelnytskyi District Administrative Court and the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal denied the claim. The courts reasoned that according to paragraph 29 of section V of Instruction No. 232, servicemen who served by conscription during mobilization are not issued personal material items they did not receive during service upon discharge. Thus, the plaintiff did not acquire the right to receive such items upon discharge. Accordingly, the defendant had no obligation to pay the plaintiff corresponding monetary compensation.

Position of the Supreme Court

Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court noted that the subject of the dispute is the serviceman's right to receive monetary compensation for unreceived material assets for the service period from January 15 to August 28, 2024.

The Supreme Court reminded that the right to monetary compensation arises from the moment the serviceman acquires the right to receive a specific material item according to established provision norms but does not actually receive it. Compensation payment is made, in particular, upon discharge from military service.

The panel of judges drew attention to the legal position set out by the Supreme Court in the ruling dated June 24, 2025, in case No. 560/4729/24. It states that paragraph 29 of section V of Instruction No. 232 aims to preserve material assets in military units for further provision to other servicemen, but this provision does not limit the person's right to receive monetary compensation for property that was to be issued but was not received during service. Moreover, a subordinate regulatory act cannot narrow the right to compensation guaranteed by Article 9-1 of the Law of Ukraine "On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Their Families."

Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the mere fact of non-issuance of material assets upon discharge of a mobilized serviceman does not deprive him of the right to receive compensation for their value.

At the same time, the Court noted that the courts of first and appellate instances did not clarify circumstances essential for the correct resolution of the dispute. In particular, they did not establish whether the plaintiff acquired the right to receive specific material items according to provision norms, whether such items were actually issued during service, nor did they determine the list of unissued property and the possible amount of compensation.

Since these circumstances remained unexplored, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, canceled the decision of the Khmelnytskyi District Administrative Court and the ruling of the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal, and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.

At the same time, when resolving similar disputes, the cassation court adheres to a consistent legal position. A similar approach is set out in the Supreme Court ruling in case No. 560/4729/24 dated June 24, 2025.

The Supreme Court concluded that paragraph 29 of section V of Instruction No. 232 cannot be grounds for refusing to pay a serviceman monetary compensation for unreceived material assets.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the serviceman's right to monetary compensation for the value of unreceived material assets is determined by law and arises from the moment the deadline for receiving the respective material provision items according to norms has come, but such items were not actually issued during service.

The Court separately noted that payment of such compensation cannot depend on restrictions provided by subordinate regulatory acts, in particular paragraph 29 of section V of Instruction No. 232, since this provision is aimed solely at organizing the preservation of material assets in military units during a special period and does not alter or narrow the legislatively established right to compensation.

The Supreme Court also confirmed that the procedure for paying monetary compensation is determined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, but such procedure cannot limit the right guaranteed by the Law of Ukraine No. 2011-XII "On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Their Families."

At the same time, the cassation court noted that for the correct resolution of the dispute, it is necessary to establish the actual circumstances regarding the plaintiff's provision with material assets during service: whether he acquired the right to specific items according to provision norms, whether they were actually issued, as well as to determine the volume of unissued property and the corresponding amount of monetary compensation.

These decisions indicate that compensation for unreceived material assets is subject to payment by law and cannot be limited by subordinate acts.

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