Compensation for delay to "combat" servicemen will not be given – The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court canceled the decision of the Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court made a decision in a landmark case filed by a serviceman seeking compensation for loss of part of income due to violation of the deadlines for payment of monetary allowance, namely the additional monetary reward provided by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution dated February 28, 2022 No. 168 (Resolution of the CMU No. 168).

Case details

The plaintiff argued that the additional reward under Resolution of the CMU No. 168 is part of the salary, so in case of untimely payment of such reward, compensation is made in accordance with the Law of Ukraine dated October 19, 2000 No. 2050-III "On compensation to citizens for loss of part of income due to violation of payment deadlines" (Law No. 2050-III).

By the decision dated April 11, 2025, the Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court satisfied the claim. The Administrative Court of Cassation was guided by the fact that the additional reward established by Resolution No. 168 for the period of martial law in connection with injury (concussion, trauma, disability) related to the defense of the Fatherland, during inpatient treatment in healthcare institutions or leave for treatment after a severe injury, is an additional type of monetary allowance for servicemen and is part of their monetary allowance. Such additional monetary allowance is income that is not one-time in nature, and violation of the payment deadline is grounds for accrual and payment of compensation for loss of part of income.

In considering this case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of monetary allowance for defenders of Ukraine in the conditions of full-scale war is extremely sensitive and requires especially thorough examination, while reminding that in this case the issue was not the recovery of the additional reward itself, which is subject to payment according to Resolution of the CMU No. 168, but exclusively the adjustment of such payment for inflation index (consumer price index), which according to current legislation is allowed only for those incomes that are not one-time in nature.

Having examined the nature of the additional monetary reward established by Resolution of the CMU No. 168, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that such additional reward is a type of one-time additional monetary allowance for a serviceman, i.e., income that is one-time in nature, and therefore, according to established judicial practice, the provisions of Law No. 2050-III do not apply to the disputed legal relations, and compensation for loss of part of such income in case of delay in payment is not subject to recovery.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court also noted that the fact that treatment may last for a certain period and during this entire period the serviceman has the right to receive the additional reward does not change the one-time nature of this payment, which is related to one legal fact – injury, and the payment of such reward in several installments over several consecutive months only indicates the payment of the same one-time income (additional reward) in parts.

Thus, in this case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court canceled the decision of the Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court and made a new decision rejecting the claim.

Decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated May 7, 2026 in case No. 280/8933/24.

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