A soldier died from an explosion, and his widow was denied a payment of 15 million UAH: the reason was alcohol in the blood
The Second Administrative Court of Appeal clarified that to refuse a one-time financial assistance to the family members of a deceased serviceman, it is not enough to establish only the fact that he was intoxicated. The Ministry of Defense must prove that the serviceman’s actions committed while intoxicated were the direct cause of his death.
In this case, the Ministry of Defense refused the widow of the deceased serviceman a one-time financial assistance. The Ministry’s commission referred to the fact that the soldier died due to careless handling of an explosive device, and a forensic toxicological examination revealed ethyl alcohol in his blood at a concentration of 1.8%. According to the commission, these circumstances indicated grounds for applying Article 16-4 of the Law "On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Their Families," which provides cases when one-time financial assistance is not granted. However, the appellate court concluded that the Ministry of Defense did not prove a causal link between the serviceman’s intoxication and his death, and therefore canceled the refusal decision.
Circumstances of the case
The widow of the deceased senior sergeant applied to the Ministry of Defense for a one-time financial assistance due to her husband’s death, which occurred during his military service.
After reviewing the documents, the Ministry of Defense Commission on the appointment and payment of one-time financial assistance refused the payment. The decision stated that the serviceman died on the temporary location territory of the unit due to careless handling of an explosive device. Additionally, the commission referred to a letter from the Main Directorate of the National Police in Zaporizhzhia region, according to which a forensic toxicological examination found ethyl alcohol in the deceased’s blood at a concentration of 1.8%, which in living persons usually corresponds to a moderate degree of intoxication. Based on these circumstances, the commission concluded that there were legal grounds for refusal of the assistance payment.
The Kharkiv District Administrative Court agreed with the Ministry of Defense’s position and denied the claim. Disagreeing with this decision, the widow filed an appeal.
What the appellate court established
The panel of judges noted that according to the conclusion of the 12th regional military-medical commission, the serviceman received fatal injuries as a result of an accident, and the injury was related to military service. This conclusion remained valid, as did the materials of the official investigation, and the Ministry of Defense did not provide evidence to overturn them.
At the same time, the appellate court noted that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence that the serviceman’s actions while intoxicated were the direct cause of his death.
The court emphasized that Article 16-4 of Law No. 2011-XII applies only when the death of a serviceman is a consequence of his actions committed while intoxicated by alcohol, drugs, or toxins. The mere fact that the serviceman was intoxicated at the time of death is not an independent ground for refusal to grant one-time financial assistance.
The panel also referred to the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court set out in rulings dated June 29, 2022, in case No. 640/6477/19 and March 18, 2024, in case No. 120/13997/21-a. The Supreme Court also held that the decisive factor is establishing a causal link between the serviceman’s actions while intoxicated and his death, not just the presence of alcohol in the body.
According to the appellate court, in this case, the cause of the serviceman’s death was not related to his intoxication or the commission of a criminal or administrative offense. Therefore, the grounds for refusal under Article 16-4 of the Law were absent.
Court decision
The Second Administrative Court of Appeal canceled the decision of the Kharkiv District Administrative Court and issued a new decision partially satisfying the claim.
The court recognized as unlawful and canceled the Ministry of Defense Commission’s decision to refuse the one-time financial assistance and obliged the Ministry of Defense to reconsider the widow’s application taking into account the legal conclusions set out in the appellate court’s ruling.
At the same time, the appellate court did not directly grant the one-time financial assistance, as the decision on its appointment belongs to the competence of the Ministry of Defense. The court in case 520/32057/25 only recognized the refusal as unlawful and obliged the ministry to reconsider the application in accordance with the law and the court’s legal position.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, Google News SUD.UA here, as well as our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram account to stay updated on the most important events.
