100,000 UAH 'lost' due to document issues — servicemember failed to sue for payments

The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed that the status of a combatant participant alone is not a basis for additional remuneration of up to 100,000 UAH, as provided by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168. To receive such payment, proper documentary evidence of direct participation in combat operations or the performance of specified combat (special) tasks is required.

In this case, a servicemember of the State Border Guard Service demanded increased remuneration for the period from March to October 2022, but the appellate court agreed with the first instance court's conclusion that the case materials lacked proper evidence of such participation during the disputed period.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff served in the State Border Guard Service and from March to October 2022 was operationally subordinated to another border detachment. She believed she participated in activities ensuring national security and defense and was entitled to increased additional remuneration of up to 100,000 UAH proportionate to the time of such participation.

According to her, the payment was not made because the military unit to which she was operationally subordinated did not transfer to the military unit at her place of service the information about her participation in combat operations as required by the orders of the State Border Guard Service Administration. Therefore, the plaintiff asked to recognize these actions as unlawful, oblige the military unit to send the necessary documents, and calculate and pay her the additional remuneration.

The Chernihiv District Administrative Court denied the claim. Disagreeing with this decision, the servicemember filed an appeal. She noted, in particular, that the first instance court incorrectly applied the order of the State Border Guard Service Administration, which came into force after the disputed period, while in 2022 orders No. 164-AG and No. 392-AG regulated the procedure for confirming the right to increased remuneration.

What the appellate court considered

The panel of judges analyzed the provisions of Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168 and the orders of the State Border Guard Service Administration No. 164-AG and No. 392-AG, which were in effect during the relevant periods of 2022. The court noted that these regulatory acts defined not only the categories of servicemembers eligible for additional remuneration of up to 100,000 UAH but also the list of documents confirming direct participation in combat operations or the performance of specified combat (special) tasks.

The appellate court also took into account the Supreme Court's practice, according to which a violation of the procedure for transferring documents between military units does not in itself deprive a servicemember of the right to additional remuneration. At the same time, the court emphasized that the right to increased payment arises only with proper documentary confirmation of direct participation in combat operations or the performance of specified combat (special) tasks.

The panel established that the case materials 620/11509/25 contain documents only regarding two days of the plaintiff's participation in combat operations or ensuring national security and defense measures — February 24 and 25, 2022. However, for the period in dispute — from March 1 to October 31, 2022 — the case lacks combat orders, combat journals, commanders' reports, or other documents confirming her direct participation in combat operations or the performance of combat (special) tasks as understood by Resolution No. 168 and departmental orders.

The court separately noted that the certificate granting the status of a combat participant is not simultaneously a basis for additional remuneration of up to 100,000 UAH. Likewise, the mere fact of a servicemember being in a territory where combat operations took place does not create the right to such payment. The court stressed that there must be a proper documentary connection between the performance of combat tasks, their recording in specified documents, and the subsequent preparation of reports. Only under such conditions does the right to increased additional remuneration arise.

Court decision

Since the case materials did not contain proper evidence of the plaintiff's direct participation in combat operations or the performance of combat (special) tasks for the period from March 1 to October 31, 2022, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Chernihiv District Administrative Court unchanged.

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 informed about the most important events.