Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court considers a model case on recovery of compensation for loss of part of income due to violation of payment deadlines for monetary allowances

On May 7, 2026, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court delivered a ruling in a model case filed by a serviceman seeking compensation for the loss of part of his income due to the violation of payment deadlines for monetary allowances, namely the additional monetary reward provided for by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 168 dated February 28, 2022 (CMU Resolution No. 168).

The claimant argued that the additional reward under CMU Resolution No. 168 constitutes a component of salary. Therefore, in the event of untimely payment of such a reward, compensation should be paid in accordance with the Law of Ukraine No. 2050-III of October 19, 2000 “On Compensation to Citizens for the Loss of Part of Income Due to Violation of Payment Deadlines” (Law No. 2050-III).

By its decision of April 11, 2025, the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court granted the claim. The Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court proceeded from the position that the additional reward established by Resolution No. 168 for the period of martial law in connection with injury (concussion, trauma, or mutilation) sustained while defending the Motherland, for the time spent in inpatient treatment in healthcare facilities or on medical leave following a serious injury, is an additional type of monetary allowance for servicemen and forms part of their monetary support. Such an additional type of monetary allowance constitutes monetary income of a non-one-off nature, and a violation of the payment deadline constitutes grounds for accrual and payment of compensation for the loss of part of income.

When considering this case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of monetary support for Ukraine’s defenders under the conditions of full-scale war is extremely sensitive and requires particularly careful examination. At the same time, it recalled that the case concerned not the recovery of the additional reward itself, which is payable under CMU Resolution No. 168, but solely the adjustment of such payment by the inflation index (consumer price index). Under current legislation, such adjustment is permitted only for income that is not of a one-off nature.

Having examined the nature of the additional monetary reward established by CMU Resolution No. 168, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that this additional reward is a type of one-off additional monetary allowance for a serviceman – that is, income of a one-off nature. Consequently, in accordance with established case law, the provisions of Law No. 2050-III do not apply to the disputed legal relations, and compensation for the loss of part of such income in the event of delayed payment is not subject to recovery.  

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court also noted that the fact that treatment may last for a certain period of time and that the serviceman is entitled to receive the additional reward for the entire period does not change the one-off nature of this payment, which is linked to a single legal fact – the injury. The payment of such a reward in several installments over several consecutive months merely indicates the payment of one and the same one-off income (additional reward) in parts.

Thus, in this case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Administrative Cassation Court and adopted a new decision refusing to satisfy the claim. 

Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated May 7, 2026, in case No. 280/8933/24 — https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/136901085.