Won the court case for housing compensation but did not receive the money: the military serviceman's case reached the appeal

The Second Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Sumy District Administrative Court in the case concerning the enforcement of the decision on the payment of monetary compensation to a serviceman for the housing he was entitled to receive. The court concluded that the report submitted by the defendant does not confirm full execution of the decision, as the compensation has not actually been paid to the plaintiff. At the same time, the head of the relevant military administration body was exempted from a fine due to the lack of evidence of intentional evasion of the court decision.

Case circumstances

Back in June 2024, the Sumy District Administrative Court partially satisfied the serviceman's claim. The court recognized the inaction of the housing commission as unlawful, since it did not inform him about the right to receive housing compensation after his turn came and did not consider his request for such compensation. The housing commission was obliged to review the application and make a decision regarding the payment of monetary compensation for the housing he was entitled to receive. In July 2024, this decision became legally binding after being reviewed on appeal.

Since the decision was not executed for a long time, in July 2025 the court established judicial control over its execution and obliged the defendant to submit a corresponding report. The report stated that the body had taken all necessary actions, but further execution depended on the allocation of budget funds by the Ministry of Defense for the payment of compensation.

The plaintiff insisted that the decision was effectively not executed because he had not been paid the compensation, and the defendant only referred to the lack of funding. He also requested a fine to be imposed on the head of the body for non-compliance with the court decision.

What the courts established

During the case review, the courts found that after the decision was made, the housing commission considered the plaintiff's issue, sent documents to order budget funds, and in March 2026 made a decision to pay him compensation upon receipt of the relevant funding.

At the same time, the appellate court emphasized that making a decision to pay compensation itself does not indicate full execution of the court decision. The compensation has not actually been paid to the plaintiff, so the court decision remains unfulfilled in full. For this reason, the court of first instance reasonably refused to accept the submitted report.

The panel of judges separately stressed that the right to enforcement of a court decision is part of the right to judicial protection guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The state and its bodies are obliged to ensure full and timely execution of court decisions.

Why the head was not fined

The appellate court agreed with the first instance court's conclusion that there were no grounds to impose a fine on the head of the defendant.

The court noted that new provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure provide for the possibility of exempting the head of an authority from a fine if it is proven that sufficient and exhaustive measures were taken to execute the decision or if the payments depend on budget appropriations, provided all necessary measures to obtain them were taken.

The court found that the defendant acted within the procedure defined by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 728 and the Ministry of Defense's departmental instruction. The body sent necessary requests to order funds, but decisions on the allocation of budget funds for such payments in the relevant years were not made. Thus, the case confirmed the absence of budget appropriations for the payment.

The panel of judges also noted that imposing a fine is a measure of responsibility that requires establishing the fault of the head, particularly intentional non-execution of the court decision or bad-faith evasion of its execution. Such circumstances were not established in the case.

Additionally, the appellate court noted that the issue of imposing a fine within judicial control belongs to the jurisdiction of the court that made the main decision in the case. In this case, that court is the Sumy District Administrative Court.

What the court said about the amount of compensation

The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant incorrectly determined the amount of compensation and underestimated it.

However, the appellate court noted that when deciding on the acceptance of the report, the court does not verify the correctness of the compensation calculation on the merits. Such objections may be the subject of a separate dispute regarding decisions, actions, or inactions of the authority made to enforce the court decision.

Conclusion of the appellate court

The Second Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals — from the serviceman who demanded the imposition of a fine and from the defendant who requested acceptance of the report on the execution of the decision.

The court in case No. 480/654/24 confirmed two key conclusions: the decision to pay housing compensation does not mean full execution of the court decision if the funds have not actually been paid; at the same time, the absence of budget appropriations and the body's taking all necessary actions to obtain them may be grounds for exempting the head from a fine within judicial control over the execution of the decision.

The decision of the Sumy District Administrative Court remains unchanged. The ruling became legally binding and is not subject to cassation appeal.

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 to stay updated on the most important events.