When a military university can recover training costs from a former cadet: The Supreme Court will review its practice

The Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court has referred a case to the judicial chamber that may affect established practice regarding the determination of the moment from which the period for filing a lawsuit to recover costs from former cadets related to their maintenance at higher military educational institutions begins.

The panel of judges concluded that there are different approaches in the Supreme Court’s practice to determining the moment from which the one-month period for filing a lawsuit in such disputes begins. In some decisions, the Supreme Court held that prolonged passive behavior of the educational institution and sending a reimbursement demand many years after the cadet’s expulsion cannot by themselves change the start of this period. At the same time, other rulings state that the right to go to court arises only after the person refuses to voluntarily reimburse the costs or fails to comply with the relevant demand, and therefore the procedural period should be calculated from that moment.

To ensure uniformity of judicial practice, the panel referred the case to the judicial chamber of the Cassation Administrative Court, considering that there are grounds to resolve the issue of possible deviation from previously formulated legal conclusions of the Supreme Court.

Case circumstances

A military educational institution filed a lawsuit with the administrative court to recover over UAH 510 thousand in costs related to the maintenance of a former cadet during his studies.

As established by the courts, the defendant studied at the military university from 2014. In February 2019, he was expelled for indiscipline, terminating the contract for military service (training). At the same time, the educational institution issued orders stating that the cadet must reimburse costs related to his maintenance during the study period. The total amount of such costs was over UAH 513 thousand, and the claimed debt was UAH 510,911.34.

In March 2025, the educational institution sent the former cadet a written demand offering to voluntarily reimburse the specified costs within ten days. The demand was received, but the funds were not paid, after which the institution went to court.

What the courts decided

The Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court satisfied the claim and ordered the former cadet to pay over UAH 510 thousand.

However, the Third Administrative Court of Appeal canceled this decision and left the claim without consideration. The appellate court reasoned that the educational institution was aware of the need to reimburse the costs back in 2019 but did not go to court for over five years. According to the appellate court, the repeated demand in 2025 does not affect the start of the period for filing a lawsuit and does not eliminate the consequences of missing the deadline.

The legal issue

Appealing the appellate court’s ruling, the military educational institution noted that part ten of Article 25 of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service" and the Procedure approved by the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 964 provide for a different mechanism.

According to the complainant, the former cadet must first be offered to voluntarily reimburse the costs. Only in case of refusal or non-fulfillment of such a demand does the right to file a lawsuit to recover the costs arise. Therefore, the educational institution believes that the one-month period for filing a lawsuit should be calculated from that moment.

Why the Supreme Court referred the case to the chamber

Reviewing the arguments of the cassation appeal, the panel noted that different approaches have already formed in the Supreme Court’s practice regarding the application of legal norms in similar relations.

In particular, in several rulings, the Supreme Court held that prolonged passive behavior of the educational institution and sending a demand many years after the cadet’s expulsion cannot by themselves change the start of the period for filing a lawsuit.

At the same time, in other decisions, the Supreme Court stated that the right to file a lawsuit to recover costs arises only after the person refuses to voluntarily reimburse them or fails to comply with the relevant demand, and therefore the procedural period should be calculated from that moment.

The panel noted that according to part ten of Article 25 of the Law "On Military Duty and Military Service" and Procedure No. 964, court recovery of costs is possible only in case of refusal to voluntarily reimburse them. Considering this, the court concluded that there are grounds to refer the case to the chamber to resolve the issue of possible deviation from some previous legal conclusions of the Supreme Court and to ensure uniformity of judicial practice.

The Supreme Court did not decide the dispute on the merits and did not determine whether over UAH 510 thousand should be recovered from the former cadet.

The ruling in case 160/10867/25 is procedural in nature. It referred the case to the judicial chamber of the Cassation Administrative Court, which must form a legal conclusion on the application of legal norms in determining the start of the period for filing a lawsuit in disputes over reimbursement of costs related to the maintenance of cadets in military educational institutions. This conclusion should ensure uniformity of judicial practice in this category of cases.

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.