Court Ordered to Pay a Soldier 70 Thousand UAH: Absence of Report Does Not Deprive the Right to Reward

The Lviv District Administrative Court considered a case regarding the right of a serviceman of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine to receive a one-time reward of 70,000 UAH for every 30 days of performing combat (special) tasks on the line of combat contact.

The dispute concerned whether a military unit can refuse to accrue and pay this reward solely due to the absence of reports from the unit commander if the fact of performing combat tasks is confirmed by other proper evidence.

Circumstances of the Case

The serviceman filed a lawsuit against the military unit, requesting to recognize its inaction regarding the non-accrual and non-payment of a one-time reward of 70,000 UAH for every 30 days of performing combat (special) tasks during combat operations on the line of combat contact with the enemy as unlawful, and to oblige the unit to accrue and pay this reward for the specified periods of service.

The claim was motivated by the fact that the serviceman directly performed combat (special) tasks on the line of combat contact, which, according to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 168 and the Features approved by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Order No. 726, entitled him to receive a one-time reward of 70,000 UAH for every 30 cumulatively calculated days of performing such tasks.

After the serviceman's representative submitted a lawyer's inquiry, the border detachment confirmed that the plaintiff was indeed involved in performing combat (special) tasks on the line of combat contact up to the company stronghold during the disputed periods. It was also reported that information about the serviceman’s participation is contained in extracts from combat journals, but the border detachment headquarters did not keep a separate record of days for paying the 70,000 UAH reward.

The case materials included extracts from combat journals, according to which the serviceman performed combat (special) tasks on the line of combat contact as part of the fourth border rapid response commandant's office of the border detachment during specified periods. These documents stated that the serviceman ensured border coverage, repelled enemy attacks, held designated lines, conducted positional defense, inflicted fire damage on the enemy, and performed other combat tasks in combat zones.

However, the defendant refused to accrue the disputed reward. The military unit argued that reports from the unit commander about the serviceman’s involvement in performing combat (special) tasks during the relevant periods were not submitted to the border detachment headquarters. According to the defendant, the absence of such reports excluded legal grounds for paying the one-time reward, since paragraph 8 of the Features No. 726 specifies the list of documents confirming a serviceman’s participation in combat and performance of combat tasks.

Considering such refusal unlawful, the serviceman turned to the court demanding to recognize the military unit’s inaction as unlawful and to oblige it to accrue and pay the one-time reward for all disputed periods.

Court’s Position

After examining the case materials No. 380/5141/26, the court first analyzed the legal regulation of additional rewards to servicemen provided by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 168 dated February 28, 2022, "On Certain Payments to Servicemen, Rank-and-File and Command Staff, Police Officers and Their Families," as well as the Ministry of Internal Affairs Orders No. 36 dated January 26, 2023, and No. 726 dated November 18, 2022, which approved the Features of paying a one-time reward of 70,000 UAH.

The court noted that Resolution No. 168 provides the right for servicemen who directly perform combat (special) tasks on the line of combat contact with the enemy or ensure national security and defense measures in combat zones to receive a one-time reward of 70,000 UAH for every 30 days of performing such tasks proportionally to the time of their performance.

The court pointed out that the Features approved by MIA Order No. 726 define the list of documents confirming the performance of combat (special) tasks by a serviceman. Such documents include combat orders, combat journals, operational situation logs, combat reports, post lists, unit commander reports, and other documents containing information about the serviceman’s direct participation in performing relevant combat tasks.

Evaluating the defendant’s arguments, the court noted that the military unit actually linked the plaintiff’s right to receive the reward exclusively to the presence of unit commander reports. At the same time, the court concluded that the provisions of Order No. 726 do not establish the report as the sole and exclusive document confirming the performance of combat (special) tasks. Instead, the regulatory framework allows confirmation of such circumstances by a combination of documents specified in the Features.

The court found that the case materials contain extracts from combat journals, information about the plaintiff’s performance of combat tasks, and letters from the military unit confirming his presence on the line of combat contact and performance of combat (special) tasks during the disputed periods. Thus, the defendant itself confirmed the fact of the serviceman’s participation in performing combat tasks, although it referred to the absence of separate commander reports.

The court stated that the absence of a separate document prepared by military management officials cannot have negative consequences for the serviceman if his performance of combat (special) tasks is confirmed by other proper and admissible evidence. Failure of military officials to fulfill the duty to prepare necessary documents cannot be grounds for depriving the serviceman of the state-guaranteed payment.

Moreover, the court emphasized that the defendant did not refute the information contained in the extracts from combat journals and other documents, nor did it provide evidence that the plaintiff did not actually perform combat (special) tasks during the periods specified in the claim. Under such circumstances, the absence of reports alone does not indicate the absence of the right to receive the one-time reward.

Court’s Conclusions

Considering the established circumstances, the court concluded that the military unit’s inaction regarding the non-accrual and non-payment of the one-time reward to the plaintiff is unlawful.

The court proceeded from the fact that the case materials confirmed the serviceman’s performance of combat (special) tasks on the line of combat contact, and therefore he acquired the right to receive the reward provided by Cabinet Resolution No. 168. At the same time, the absence of unit commander reports cannot be an independent and sufficient reason for refusal to pay if the relevant circumstances are confirmed by other documents defined by law.

The court also noted that the authority must act on the basis, within the powers, and in the manner prescribed by law, and its decisions or inaction must be justified, conscientious, proportional, and comply with the principle of good governance. Failure of military officials to follow internal procedures for preparing certain documents cannot lead to limiting the serviceman’s state-guaranteed right to receive legislatively established payments.

After evaluating all evidence provided by the parties as a whole, the court concluded that the claims are justified and subject to satisfaction.

As a result, the court recognized the military unit’s inaction regarding the non-accrual and non-payment of the one-time reward of 70,000 UAH for the periods of performing combat (special) tasks as unlawful, and obliged the defendant to accrue and pay the specified reward in accordance with the requirements of Cabinet Resolution No. 168, taking into account the actually confirmed days of performing combat (special) tasks and previously made payments, if any.

The court specifically emphasized that the serviceman’s right to receive the reward arises not from the issuance of a certain internal document but from the actual performance of combat (special) tasks defined by law, confirmed by proper evidence. Therefore, the absence of a commander’s report does not exempt the military unit from the obligation to accrue and pay funds if the serviceman’s participation in performing such tasks is confirmed by other documents provided for by regulatory acts.

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.