The investigation is still ongoing: can this be a reason not to consider the deceased soldier's family's claim for 15 million UAH

The family of the deceased border guard, who was killed by an explosive device while performing a combat mission, appealed the actions of the State Border Guard Service after applying for a one-time financial aid of 15 million UAH. The border detachment informed the applicants that it was currently impossible to make a decision because the pre-trial and official investigations into the circumstances of the death had not yet been completed.

The Zhytomyr District Administrative Court concluded that in fact the defendant did not make any decision to refuse the aid. Instead, the body only informed about the impossibility of making a decision without considering the application according to the procedure established by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Instruction No. 383.

The court recognized such inaction as unlawful and obliged the border detachment to consider the applications of the deceased’s family members in accordance with the established procedure. At the same time, the court did not order the payment of the aid itself and denied the claims to cancel the refusal decisions, since such decisions did not actually exist.

Circumstances of the case

Sergeant of the State Border Guard Service died on June 25, 2024, while performing a task related to the engineering arrangement of the state border. The service vehicle carrying the working group of border guards exploded on an explosive device. Two servicemen died.

According to the medical certificate, the cause of death was injuries sustained as a result of military actions caused by the explosion and fragments.

After the death, the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine initiated an official investigation. A criminal proceeding was also launched under Part 3 of Article 419 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the violation of border service rules that caused severe consequences.

In February 2025, the deceased’s wife, his minor son, and one of the parents applied for one-time financial aid provided by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168.

In response, the border detachment informed the applicants that it was impossible to make a decision on the aid until the pre-trial investigation into the circumstances of the serviceman’s death was completed. The family challenged these actions in court, considering them illegal.

What the court established

In case 240/23231/25, the court analyzed the Law "On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Their Families," Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 168, Procedure No. 975, and Ministry of Internal Affairs Instruction No. 383, which defines the procedure for granting one-time aid in the State Border Guard Service.

The court noted that Instruction No. 383 establishes a clear procedure for considering such applications. For this, a commission must be formed within the State Border Guard Service, which after reviewing the submitted documents must make one of the conclusions provided by the Instruction: to grant aid, to refuse aid, or to return documents for revision.

However, the court found that the defendant did not create the appropriate commission to consider these applications, did not review the applications according to the procedure defined by Instruction No. 383, and did not make any decision based on such review. The applicants only received letters stating the impossibility of making a decision until the criminal proceeding was completed.

Why the court did not cancel the "refusal"

The plaintiffs asked the court to cancel the decision refusing the one-time financial aid.

However, during the case review, the court established that the defendant did not actually make such a decision. The letters sent to the applicants only informed about the impossibility of making a decision but were not decisions of the commission as provided by Instruction No. 383.

Therefore, the court denied the claims to cancel refusal decisions and could not oblige the direct payment of the one-time financial aid because the competent authority had not yet properly reviewed the applications.

The court went beyond the claims

At the same time, the court exercised the right to go beyond the stated claims to effectively protect the plaintiffs' rights.

Since the refusal decision did not actually exist, the court concluded that the violation was the failure to consider the applications according to the established procedure.

Accordingly, the court recognized the border detachment’s inaction regarding the non-consideration of the deceased’s family members' applications as unlawful and obliged the defendant to consider them according to the requirements of Instruction No. 383. The court denied the other part of the claim.

Additionally, the court awarded the plaintiff 968.96 UAH in court fees.

Significance of the decision

The court concluded that even with ongoing pre-trial and official investigations, the defendant had to act according to Instruction No. 383 and not limit itself to a letter about the impossibility of making a decision.

Thus, the court did not resolve the issue of whether the family members had the right to the one-time financial aid or evaluate the grounds for its appointment. The dispute concerned compliance with the procedure for reviewing applications, and it was the inaction of the body that failed to fulfill the requirements of Instruction No. 383 that the court found unlawful.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our Facebook and Instagram pages to stay updated on the most important events.