When an Adult Sister of a Deceased Serviceman Has the Right to Payments: The Position of the Supreme Court

13:10, 27 May 2026
telegram sharing button
facebook sharing button
viber sharing button
twitter sharing button
whatsapp sharing button
Over 117 thousand hryvnias in transfers were not sufficient evidence of being dependent on the deceased serviceman.
When an Adult Sister of a Deceased Serviceman Has the Right to Payments: The Position of the Supreme Court
Follow the latest news on SUD.UA social networks

The mere fact of regular money transfers from a deceased serviceman does not mean that a relative was dependent on him within the meaning of the law. To receive a one-time financial aid as a dependent, it is necessary not only to prove the fact of material support but also to meet the criteria of an "incapacitated family member" as defined by the legislation on pension provision for persons discharged from military service.

This conclusion was reached by the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court in case No. 522/10798/25-E.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff — the sister of the deceased serviceman — asked the court to establish the fact of being dependent on her brother. She explained that after her husband's death, she independently raises a minor daughter with a severe heart condition, and her brother during his service actually provided material support to the family. A few months before his death, the serviceman transferred over 117 thousand UAH to her.

The woman applied to the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center (TRSSC) to arrange a one-time financial aid due to her brother's death. According to the plaintiff, the TRSSC informed her of the need to provide a court decision confirming the fact of being dependent.

The courts of first and appellate instances denied the claim. They indicated that the evidence provided did not confirm that the brother's assistance was a constant and primary source of livelihood for the plaintiff. The courts also noted that the woman had her own stable income, and the transfers were made only over several months.

In the cassation appeal, the plaintiff's representative emphasized that the courts did not properly compare the applicant's income with the financial assistance from her brother. According to the appellant, her monthly income was several times less than the support received from the serviceman, and therefore this assistance was the main source of livelihood.

However, the Supreme Court left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.

What the Supreme Court stated

The court thoroughly analyzed the provisions of the Law "On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Their Families," the Law "On Pension Provision for Persons Discharged from Military Service and Some Other Persons," as well as Procedure No. 975 regarding the payment of one-time financial aid to families of deceased servicemen.

The panel of judges emphasized that the right to one-time financial aid as a dependent is granted only to persons who are dependents of the deceased and simultaneously belong to the category of incapacitated family members within the meaning of Law No. 2262-XII.

The Supreme Court noted that for adult brothers or sisters, the law provides special conditions. In particular, such a right may arise only in cases explicitly defined by law, including if the person is incapacitated within the meaning of Law No. 2262-XII.

In this case, the courts established that the plaintiff is an adult, has a stable income, and did not provide evidence confirming her belonging to the category of incapacitated persons entitled to a pension in case of loss of a breadwinner.

The Supreme Court recognized the failure to prove the status of an incapacitated family member within the meaning of Law No. 2262-XII as the key reason for refusing to establish the fact of dependency.

The court also noted that even significant money transfers by themselves do not automatically indicate dependency. It is necessary to prove that such assistance was a constant and primary source of livelihood.

The cassation court separately emphasized that within the cassation review, it cannot re-evaluate evidence or establish new factual circumstances. Therefore, additional documents submitted at the cassation stage — including the child's baptism certificate and written witness statements — were not taken into account.

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.

XX Congress of Judges of Ukraine – online broadcast – day one