The Ministry of Defense did not grant assistance due to 'careless handling of weapons': the court ordered a reconsideration of the 15 million UAH payment

The "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" continues to analyze judicial practice regarding disputes related to the appointment of one-time financial assistance to families of deceased servicemen.

The previous article discussed the Supreme Court decision concerning the right of a serviceman’s wife, who died due to an illness related to the defense of the Fatherland, to receive one-time financial assistance of 15 million UAH according to Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168.

It was also previously reported that the right to one-time financial assistance of 15 million UAH under Cabinet Resolution No. 168 formally arises in the event of the death of a serviceman during the defense of the Fatherland. However, in practice, one of the most disputed issues remains whether this payment applies when a serviceman dies not from a combat injury but from an illness developed during military duty. In particular, the wording in the conclusion of the post-mortem military medical commission is decisive.

In another case, the court considered a dispute regarding the appointment of one-time financial assistance to families of deceased servicemen — whether the Ministry of Defense can refuse the mother of the deceased payment, citing that his death allegedly resulted from an administrative offense due to careless handling of weapons.

The Ivano-Frankivsk District Administrative Court, having reviewed case No. 300/655/26, recognized such refusal as unlawful.

The court concluded that the Ministry of Defense unjustifiably considered the serviceman's death as a consequence of an administrative offense and therefore had no legal grounds to refuse the mother the appointment of one-time financial assistance.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff’s son served in a military unit as a rifleman-assistant grenadier of a motorized infantry squad of a motorized infantry platoon of a motorized infantry company of a motorized infantry battalion. On December 21, 2022, he died from a gunshot wound to the head. According to the death certificate and the forensic medical expert's conclusion, the cause of death was a skull vault fracture and a gunshot wound to the head. The military unit commander approved the special investigation report of the accident and the accident report (death). In particular, by the commander's order, the serviceman was removed from the personnel list. The order stated that his death was related to military service and the performance of military duties.

Then, on May 23, 2024, the 16th regional military medical commission established that the wound received by the serviceman on December 21, 2022, which led to his death, as well as the cause of death, were related to the performance of military duties.

The mother of the deceased serviceman, the plaintiff, on November 28, 2024, applied to the territorial recruitment and social support center with a request for the appointment of one-time financial assistance, attaching the necessary documents. After processing, the territorial recruitment center on December 19, 2024, sent a conclusion to the Department of Social Security of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine regarding the possibility of paying one-time financial assistance to the family members of the deceased serviceman.

However, on March 21, 2025, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine commission on issues related to the appointment and payment of one-time financial assistance and compensations decided to refuse the mother of the deceased the appointment of one-time financial assistance. The basis for refusal was the commission's conclusion that the serviceman’s death resulted from an administrative offense related to careless handling of weapons.

Why the Ministry of Defense refused

The commission referred to the service investigation report and a police letter, according to which the serviceman, while disembarking from a vehicle, accidentally triggered the trigger of the weapon assigned to him and shot himself in the head.

The Ministry of Defense believed these actions violated weapon handling rules, falling under Article 172-19 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. Therefore, the ministry applied Article 16-4 of the Law of Ukraine "On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Their Families," which prohibits payment of one-time assistance if death results from an administrative offense.

What the court decided

The court noted that the right to one-time financial assistance arises on the date of the serviceman’s death, and its appointment and amount must be determined according to the legislation in force at that time. Parents of the deceased serviceman have the right to receive assistance, and the appointment and payment are carried out by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.

At the same time, the legislation contains an exhaustive list of cases when such assistance is not appointed. In particular, if the death of the serviceman resulted from committing a criminal or administrative offense, being under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or toxic substances, intentional self-inflicted injuries or suicide (except cases of inducement to suicide), or submission of false information. The court noted that the excerpt from the Ministry of Defense commission meeting protocol dated March 21, 2025, No. 14/v, did not mention the absence of necessary documents or deficiencies in their execution. The only reason for refusal was the Ministry of Defense’s opinion that the serviceman’s death resulted from an administrative offense under Article 172-19 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, namely violation of weapon handling rules.

As noted in the materials, the Ministry of Defense commission referred to the military unit’s special investigation report, according to which the serviceman accidentally triggered the trigger of the weapon assigned to him while disembarking from a vehicle and shot himself in the head. Similar conclusions were contained in the letter from the Kramatorsk District Police Department.

However, the court found that the police letter only confirmed the existence of a criminal proceeding regarding the death of servicemen in the combat zone and contained information about the possibility of separating materials concerning the serviceman’s death into a separate proceeding. The document contained no data on bringing the deceased to criminal liability or establishing his guilt.

Referring to Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine and the practice of the Constitutional Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the court emphasized that the presumption of innocence also applies to administrative offense cases. All doubts regarding the offense and the person’s guilt must be interpreted in their favor.

Moreover, the court noted that the Ministry of Defense did not provide any evidence that the serviceman was held administratively liable. The case materials lacked both an administrative offense protocol and a decision imposing administrative penalties. Under such circumstances, the court found the claim of committing an administrative offense unfounded.

Separately, the court considered the conclusions of the service investigation conducted by the military unit. The special investigation report stated that the commission did not see signs of administrative or criminal offenses in the serviceman’s actions. Furthermore, the accident report indicated that no persons who violated legislation or regulatory acts causing the accident were identified.

Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the Ministry of Defense did not prove the lawfulness of its refusal, and the legal grounds for denying one-time financial assistance in this case were absent.

Considering this, the court recognized the Ministry of Defense commission’s refusal decision unlawful and canceled it, obliging the Ministry of Defense to reconsider the deceased serviceman’s mother’s application and appoint and pay her one-time financial assistance according to the Law "On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Their Families." The court also ordered the Ministry of Defense to pay the plaintiff court fees amounting to 1,331.20 UAH.

Previously, the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" reported that the right to one-time financial assistance (OFA) of 15 million UAH under Cabinet Resolution No. 168 formally arises in the event of a serviceman’s death during the defense of the Fatherland. At the same time, one of the most disputed issues in judicial practice remains determining the right to such payment if death did not result from a direct combat injury but from an illness developed during military duty.

In practice, the decisive factor in such cases is the wording of the post-mortem military medical commission’s conclusion. If the conclusion states that the death is related to military service, family members have the right to one-time financial assistance under Cabinet Resolution No. 975 in the amount of 750 times the subsistence minimum. If the military medical commission establishes that the death is related to the defense of the Fatherland, the right arises to receive one-time financial assistance of 15 million UAH according to Cabinet Resolution No. 168.

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 account to stay informed about the most important events.