Military serviceman died of pneumonia: court obliged to recognize death as related to the defense of the Fatherland

The Zhytomyr District Administrative Court clarified an important aspect of document processing in the event of the death of a serviceman. If after the issuance of an order by the military unit, the military medical commission reviewed the causal connection of the death and established new circumstances, the command cannot refuse to make the appropriate changes solely due to the alleged absence of such a mechanism in the legislation. The court noted that current regulations provide for the possibility of making changes to already issued orders by issuing a new order. At the same time, the court emphasized that the original order was lawful at the time of its adoption, so there are no grounds for its cancellation.

Circumstances of the case

The mother of the deceased serviceman applied to the court, requesting to oblige the military unit to change the order regarding the cause of her son’s death.

After the serviceman’s death in December 2023, the commander of the military unit issued an order stating that the cause of death was bilateral total pneumonia, and the death was not related to the performance of military service duties and the defense of the Fatherland.

In April 2024, the Central Military Medical Commission established that the disease that caused the serviceman’s death was related to military service. Subsequently, the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal obliged to review the causal connection of the disease that led to the serviceman’s death.

As a result of this review, a protocol of the meeting of the regular military medical commission dated February 4, 2026, was drawn up. The commission established that the disease that caused the serviceman’s death and the cause of his death were related to the defense of the Fatherland.

After that, the serviceman’s mother applied to the military unit with a request to make the appropriate changes to the order. However, she was refused, citing that the legislation allegedly does not provide a mechanism for making changes to already issued orders. She challenged this refusal in court.

What the court established

The court in case 240/12175/26 noted that the Instruction on the organization of personnel accounting in the Ministry of Defense system of Ukraine, approved by the Ministry of Defense order No. 280, directly provides for the possibility of making changes to already signed personnel orders by issuing a new order.

Therefore, the arguments of the military unit about the absence of a regulatory mechanism for making changes were recognized by the court as unfounded.

At the same time, the court emphasized that at the time of issuing the order dated January 26, 2024, it corresponded to the documents and established circumstances at that time. Therefore, there were no grounds to recognize this order as unlawful or to cancel it.

However, after the military medical commission reached a new conclusion following the review of the causal connection, the military unit was obliged to bring its documents in line with this conclusion. The refusal to do so, according to the court, contradicted the requirements of the legislation. Therefore, it was not the original version of the order that was recognized as unlawful, but the refusal of the military unit to make changes to it after receiving the new conclusion of the military medical commission.

What the court decided

The Zhytomyr District Administrative Court partially satisfied the claim.

The court recognized the refusal of the military unit to make changes to the order dated January 26, 2024, regarding the cause of the serviceman’s death as unlawful and obliged the commander of the military unit to make the appropriate changes taking into account the protocol of the meeting of the regular military medical commission dated February 4, 2026.

After making changes, the order must state that the disease that caused the serviceman’s death and the cause of his death are related to the defense of the Fatherland.

At the same time, the court refused to satisfy the claim to recognize the order dated January 26, 2024, as unlawful and to cancel it, since at the time of its adoption it corresponded to the documents in force at that time and was not illegal.

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.