The Supreme Court protected the right of the family of a deceased serviceman to payments despite different spellings of surnames in documents

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court confirmed that discrepancies in the spelling of surnames in documents do not prevent the establishment of family relationships in court if it is necessary to exercise the rights of the family members of the deceased serviceman. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense and agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts regarding the grounds for establishing kinship between the deceased serviceman and his parents.

Circumstances of the case

After the death of her husband, a serviceman, during a combat mission, his wife applied to the Ministry of Defense to arrange a one-time financial assistance payment.

During the review of the documents, the Ministry of Defense commission found discrepancies in the spelling of the surnames of the deceased serviceman and his parents. Because of this, the documents were returned for revision with a requirement to provide a court decision or other documents confirming the family relationship between the deceased serviceman and his parents.

The applicant filed a claim with the court to establish the fact of family relationship. During the case review, it was established that the parents listed on the serviceman's birth certificate were indeed his mother and father.

Additionally, the Ukrainian Bureau of Linguistic Expertise stated in its conclusion that the different surname spellings are identical, and the discrepancies arose due to deviations from orthographic norms, features of interlingual surname transformation, and the situation of contact bilingualism.

The court of first instance granted the claim, and the appellate court agreed with this conclusion.

Arguments of the Ministry of Defense

In its cassation appeal, the Ministry of Defense noted that the legislation provides for the possibility of making changes to civil status records to confirm family relationships.

According to the ministry, the applicant should have initially used the procedure for correcting the relevant records through the civil status registration authority. Only in case of refusal to make such changes could she apply to the court.

For these reasons, the Ministry requested the annulment of the decisions of the lower courts.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Civil Cassation Court dismissed the cassation appeal.

The Supreme Court reminded that cases establishing the fact of family relationships are directly provided for by Article 315 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and may be considered in separate proceedings.

The court noted that the establishment of facts having legal significance is allowed when the realization of a person's rights depends on such a fact, there is no dispute over the right itself, and the current legislation does not provide another procedure for confirming the relevant circumstance.

The Civil Cassation Court took into account the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, set out in the ruling dated February 11, 2026, in case No. 308/17634/23. The Grand Chamber noted that a one-time financial assistance payment related to the death of a serviceman is paid to persons entitled to receive it, and disputes in such legal relations may arise between claimants for the payment, not between the applicant and the Ministry of Defense.

The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts that the evidence in the case confirms kinship between the deceased serviceman and his parents. Establishing this fact has legal significance for the applicant as it is necessary to exercise the right to receive one-time financial assistance after the death of her husband.

Separately, the Civil Cassation Court noted that the Ministry of Defense commission itself, when returning the documents for revision, indicated the need to provide a court decision or other documents confirming the fact of family relationship. Therefore, the arguments about improper protection of the right were recognized as unfounded.

The court also emphasized that the cassation instance is a court of law, not a court of fact, and therefore does not re-evaluate evidence properly examined by the lower courts.

In case No. 361/12008/24, the Supreme Court concluded that the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the lower courts and essentially amount to disagreement with the evaluation of evidence. Accordingly, the Civil Cassation Court dismissed the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Defense, leaving the decision of the Brovary City District Court of Kyiv region and the ruling of the Kyiv Appellate Court unchanged.

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