Being a relative is not enough to receive payment for a deceased serviceman — Supreme Court
The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court confirmed: to confirm the status of family members of a deceased serviceman, mere kinship, past cohabitation, or isolated evidence of assistance and care is insufficient. A person requesting to establish the fact of living as one family to confirm such status must prove a combination of circumstances stipulated by Article 3 of the Family Code of Ukraine: joint residence, shared household, running a common economy, and mutual rights and obligations.
In this case, the deceased serviceman's grandfather and grandmother asked to establish the fact of their living as one family with their grandson, since without such a court decision the Ministry of Defense could not resolve their right to a share of the one-time financial assistance provided by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168. However, courts of all instances concluded that the evidence they provided did not confirm the existence of family relations in the legal sense. The Supreme Court left these conclusions unchanged.
Circumstances of the case
After the serviceman died during a combat mission, his grandfather and grandmother applied to the Ministry of Defense for a one-time financial assistance as family members of the deceased.
The Ministry of Defense stated that the submitted documents were insufficient to confirm such status. The agency noted that without a court decision establishing the fact of joint residence, running a common household, and the presence of mutual rights and obligations, it was impossible to determine the applicants' right to receive the relevant payment. After that, the grandfather and grandmother filed a lawsuit to establish such a legal fact.
The plaintiffs stated that after the grandson reached adulthood, he actually lived with them except for periods of military service. According to them, they ran a common household, had a joint budget, the grandson helped finance house repairs, paid certain family expenses, and after his death, his personal documents remained with them. They also referred to witness testimonies, inspection reports of living conditions, and other written evidence.
At the same time, the case materials contained evidence of the serviceman's family relations with his wife, including a registered marriage, documents of their joint residence, the wife opening an inheritance case after his death, and her receipt of official notifications from military authorities.
What the Supreme Court decided
The Civil Cassation Court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of first and appellate instances to deny the claim.
The Supreme Court reminded that according to Article 3 of the Family Code, a family consists of persons who live together, share a household, and have mutual rights and obligations. It is precisely the combination of these features that must be proven in cases establishing the fact of living as one family if the right to social payments depends on it. None of these features alone is sufficient to establish the corresponding legal fact.
The court emphasized that the mere fact of blood relation between the grandfather, grandmother, and grandson does not confirm that they were members of one family within the meaning of family law.
The cassation court also agreed with the assessment of evidence given by the lower courts. In particular, it noted that the presence of some personal documents of the deceased with the grandparents, the awarding of his medals and honorary citizen diploma to them, the erection of a monument, placement of a photo on the Alley of Heroes, the grandson paying for a festive dinner in honor of the grandfather, or listing him as a payer in house repair documents are not by themselves sufficient evidence of joint residence as one family, running a common household, and the presence of mutual rights and obligations.
The Supreme Court in case 345/3886/24 agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts that the plaintiffs did not provide proper, admissible, and sufficient evidence confirming joint residence with the grandson as one family, running a common household, shared household, and the presence of mutual rights and obligations during the claimed period.
Separately, the Civil Cassation Court noted that the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court set out in other cases are applied taking into account the specific factual circumstances of each case and cannot be automatically transferred to other disputes. Moreover, the cassation court does not have the authority to re-evaluate evidence or establish new factual circumstances.
As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances 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 updated on the most important events.
