Annual One-Off Payment to Persons with War-Related Disabilities in Ukraine

Social security and pension provision have always been important issues in Ukrainian society. As a result, disputes concerning social benefits are frequently considered by courts at all levels, including the Supreme Court.

Such cases often concern legal issues on which the Supreme Court has not previously expressed a position or situations where it is necessary to depart from an earlier legal position adopted by a cassation court.

In particular, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court addressed the payment of annual one-off financial assistance in its judgment of 13 January 2021. The dispute was considered as a model case, making the Court’s conclusions particularly important for other cases involving similar circumstances.

The claimant, a person with a Group II war-related disability, was entitled to annual one-off financial assistance. However, the competent Centre for the Calculation and Payment of Social Benefits paid the assistance in a reduced amount, calculating it on the basis of a resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine rather than the amount provided for by law.

The Court established that, when the claimant received the annual payment traditionally payable by 5 May in April 2020, both Law of Ukraine No. 3551-XII and Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 112 were applicable to the relevant legal relations.

The key issue was which legal act should determine the amount of the payment. Since a law has higher legal force than a resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers, the amount of annual one-off financial assistance payable in 2020 to persons with war-related disabilities had to be determined under Law No. 3551-XII rather than Resolution No. 112.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court therefore concluded that the annual one-off payment due by 5 May 2020 to persons with war-related disabilities had to be paid in the amount established by law, rather than in the lower amount determined by the Cabinet of Ministers.

The Court also emphasised an important principle concerning social guarantees: a lack of budgetary funding cannot, by itself, justify reducing social payments guaranteed by law.

Accordingly, the Grand Chamber protected the claimant’s statutory right to receive the annual one-off financial assistance in the amount established by legislation. The legal conclusions in this model case became important guidance for resolving similar disputes concerning underpayment of annual financial assistance to persons with war-related disabilities.