One-Off Financial Assistance to the Family of a Deceased Serviceman

A lieutenant colonel spent almost two months in the area of the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO). After returning home, he developed a severe mental health condition and died by suicide several days later.

The deceased serviceman’s family applied to the regional military commissariat seeking recognition of their right to obtain a certificate confirming the status of a family member of a serviceman who died during military service. They also applied to the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine for a one-off financial assistance payment in connection with his death.

Both authorities refused the family’s applications. The family therefore challenged those refusals before the court.

During the proceedings, the courts examined the circumstances surrounding the serviceman’s death and the available medical evidence. It was established that the lieutenant colonel had suffered from an anxiety-depressive disorder accompanied by panic attacks. According to the relevant medical findings, his condition prevented him from fully understanding the nature and consequences of his actions at the relevant time.

The courts also examined whether his illness and subsequent death were legally connected with his military service.

After analysing the applicable legislation, the court concluded that the concept of the “period of performance of military duties” may also encompass an illness and its consequences where that illness arose as a result of military service and the performance of official duties.

Ukrainian legislation provides for payment of one-off financial assistance to eligible family members where a serviceman’s death results from an illness connected with the performance of military service.

At the same time, the legislation provides certain grounds on which such financial assistance may be refused. One such ground concerns death resulting from intentional self-harm.

Therefore, a key issue in this case was whether the serviceman’s death could legally be regarded as the result of intentional self-harm or whether it was the consequence of an illness connected with his military service.

The relevant medical examination established a causal connection between the serviceman’s illness, his condition and the cause of his death. The medical findings also established that the relevant illness and its consequences were connected with the defence of Ukraine and the performance of military service.

These findings were particularly important because the medical evidence indicated that, due to his condition, the lieutenant colonel was unable to understand the nature of his actions.

Accordingly, the courts concluded that the circumstances of his death could not simply be classified as intentional self-harm for the purpose of applying the statutory exclusion from one-off financial assistance.

The fact that death occurred through an act of self-harm did not, by itself, determine the family’s entitlement. It was necessary to establish the serviceman’s mental state, whether his actions could legally be regarded as intentional and whether there was a causal connection between his condition, his military service and his death.

Based on the medical evidence and the established causal connection with military service, the courts concluded that the serviceman’s family was entitled to legal protection.

As a result, the courts recognised the family’s right both to obtain the relevant status and certificate as family members of a serviceman whose death was connected with military service and to receive the statutory one-off financial assistance.

The practical significance of this case is that the mere fact that a serviceman’s death involved self-harm does not automatically exclude the family’s right to statutory payments. The competent authorities must examine whether the act was intentional, the serviceman’s medical condition at the relevant time and whether that condition was causally connected with military service.

Therefore, where the Ministry of Defence or another competent authority refuses one-off financial assistance solely on the basis that the serviceman died by suicide, the medical circumstances and the causal connection between the illness, military service and death should be carefully examined. Where medical evidence excludes intentional self-harm in the legal sense and confirms a service-related cause, the refusal may be challenged before an administrative court.