For the families of rank-and-file and command personnel of the civil protection service (Ukraine's State Emergency Service, DSNS) who die in service, the state provides two different payments that are often confused. The first is a one-time monetary assistance payment under the Code of Civil Protection of Ukraine, calculated in subsistence minimums. The second is UAH 15,000,000 under paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 168 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (CMU) dated 28 February 2022. The difference between them is more than twelve million hryvnias, and in practice everything depends on a single document: the medical expert commission's ruling on the circumstances of death. Below is how these two payments relate to each other, and how courts assess an authority's refusal to pay the difference.
About this material. This is a review of court practice based on published court decisions from the Unified State Register of Court Decisions. I did not represent either party in the cases discussed. This material is not legal advice for your specific situation and does not guarantee the same outcome.
In brief: 5 points
- The payment under Article 118 of the Code of Civil Protection and the UAH 15,000,000 payment under paragraph 2 of CMU Resolution No. 168 are two different payments with different legal grounds.
- Eligibility for the payment under Resolution No. 168 depends on the circumstances of death: performing service duties during martial law, participating in combat operations or in ensuring national security and defense measures, and being directly present in the areas where those measures were carried out.
- The circumstances of death are established by a ruling of the medical expert commission. If the commission issues a ruling in a new wording, the previous one loses effect.
- Having received a smaller amount earlier does not deprive the family of the right to claim the difference, taking into account amounts already paid.
- Court practice shows that an authority's refusal which disregards a valid commission ruling can be found unlawful and set aside.
Two different payments that get confused
This is the most common reason a family considers the matter closed after receiving money — and does not apply for the rest.
| Feature | One-time assistance under the Code of Civil Protection | Payment under CMU Resolution No. 168 |
|---|---|---|
| Legal basis | Article 118 of the Code of Civil Protection of Ukraine | Paragraph 2 of CMU Resolution No. 168 dated 28 February 2022 |
| Amount | 750 times the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons as of 1 January of the relevant year | UAH 15,000,000 |
| Condition | death occurred while performing service duties | additionally: the circumstances and territorial criteria set out in the resolution |
| Distribution | equal shares among recipients | equal shares among recipients defined by Article 16-1 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Social and Legal Protection of Servicemembers and Members of Their Families" |
| Who decides | the commission of the authority responsible for granting the one-time assistance | the same authority, but taking into account the ruling on the circumstances of death |
To illustrate: in the case reviewed below, the commission awarded the family 750 subsistence minimums — UAH 2,013,000 (calculated at UAH 2,684 as of 1 January 2023) — in November 2023, which was paid out in equal shares. The difference up to 15 million — UAH 12,987,000 — became the subject of a separate dispute.
The subsistence minimum changes every year, and the wording of Resolution No. 168 and related acts is updated. The figures given relate to a specific case and a specific period — in your situation the calculation needs to be made as of the current date.
Who is entitled to the payment
The circle of recipients under Resolution No. 168 is defined through Article 16-1 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Social and Legal Protection of Servicemembers and Members of Their Families": these are family members of the deceased, most often in practice the spouse, children, and parents. The amount is distributed among them in equal shares.
Certain categories of persons are excluded: citizens of the russian federation or the Republic of Belarus and persons permanently residing in the territories of those countries, as well as persons convicted of state treason, collaboration activity, or aiding and abetting the aggressor state.
Applications for minor children are filed by their legal representatives. That is exactly what happened in the case reviewed: the mother acted in her own interest and as the legal representative of her son, while for the other child a different legal representative filed the application. This is an important detail — each recipient files their own application, and a refusal is issued separately for each one.
Why the medical expert commission's ruling decides everything
The authority that grants the payment does not establish the circumstances of death on its own, "at its own discretion." Those circumstances are established by a ruling of the central medical expert commission (a body that determines the cause and circumstances of a service member's death) — a document that states directly whether death occurred while performing service duties during martial law, during direct participation in combat operations or in ensuring national security and defense measures, and whether the person was directly present in the areas where those measures were carried out.
What matters in practice: the commission can issue a ruling in a new wording. In the case reviewed, the first ruling was issued in November 2023, and in March 2024 the commission issued a ruling in a new wording under protocol No. 63/659, which revoked the effect of the previous ruling and classified the circumstances of death differently — with a direct reference to performing service duties during martial law while participating in combat operations or in ensuring national security and defense measures.
It was this new commission ruling that became the basis for the family's claim for the difference. The courts also assessed materials provided for by departmental procedure: orders confirming the person's participation in emergency rescue and other urgent operations made necessary by an armed attack or enemy fire, a report on the fire, and the report of the operation's commander.
Case review: case No. 200/8742/24
The facts as set out in the court decisions are as follows. The family of a deceased colonel of the civil protection service received one-time monetary assistance of UAH 2,013,000, awarded by the commission under Article 118 of the Code of Civil Protection in November 2023 and paid out in December 2023.
After the medical expert commission issued a ruling in a new wording, in July 2024 the family's representative filed applications with the territorial authority for the difference — UAH 12,987,000 — to be granted and paid under paragraph 2 of CMU Resolution No. 168.
The authority refused by letters dated 19 July 2024. The stated reason: in the authority's view, the deceased was not, at the time of his injury and subsequent death, in an area where military (combat) operations were being conducted. Later, on 2 December 2024, the authority issued a formal finding refusing to grant the payment.
What the courts decided:
- by a decision of the Donetsk District Administrative Court dated 2 May 2025 in case No. 200/8742/24, the claim was granted in full: the authority's finding of 2 December 2024 was declared unlawful and set aside, and the authority was ordered to make the payment, taking into account amounts already paid;
- by a ruling of the First Administrative Court of Appeal dated 17 September 2025, the authority's appeal was dismissed and the first-instance decision left unchanged.
What is practically relevant for other families:
- A smaller payment received earlier does not "close" the matter: the subject of the claim is specifically the difference, taking into account amounts already paid.
- A new medical expert commission ruling that revokes a previous one is grounds for a repeat application — not a document that has already been "played out."
- An authority's own assessment of whether a person was in a combat-operations area is not conclusive when a valid commission ruling and departmental documents on participation in the operations exist, and it is subject to review by the court.
- The dispute is heard by an administrative court as a dispute with a subject of public authority (an exercise of official power).
Both decisions are public. The full text can be checked in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions under case No. 200/8742/24.
This is the outcome of one specific case, with a specific set of evidence and a specific commission ruling. It does not mean that any family will receive 15 million, and it is not a promise of the same outcome.
When the authority simply stays silent: case No. 200/5312/24
Before the dispute over the refusal itself, this story had an earlier stage that is often forgotten. The authority first failed to review the applications properly — and by a decision of the Donetsk District Administrative Court dated 28 October 2024 in case No. 200/5312/24, its inaction in reviewing the applications filed on 16 July 2024 was declared unlawful.
The takeaway for a family is simple: an authority's silence can also be challenged. There is no need to wait years for a "final" written refusal. But rushing to file a claim over the payment itself, without a formal decision from the authority, is not advisable either — the sequence of steps matters.
Documents: what to get, where, and why
| Document | Where to get it | Why it is needed |
|---|---|---|
| Medical expert commission ruling on the circumstances of death | Through the authority where the deceased served | The key document: it determines which payment applies |
| Death certificate | Civil registry office (DRACS) | Confirms the fact of death |
| Documents proving family relationship | Civil registry office (DRACS), court (if a fact needs to be established) | Confirm a specific person's right to a share of the payment |
| Orders on participation in operations, fire report, operation commander's report | The authority where the deceased served | Confirm the circumstances and the place where the duties were performed |
| Previously issued commission ruling on the one-time assistance and payment documents | Authority, bank | Needed to calculate the difference specifically |
| Application to the territorial authority and the written response to it | Authority | Without it a claim is premature; a refusal is what gets challenged |
Action plan for the family
- Obtain a copy of the valid medical expert commission ruling and check how it describes the circumstances of death. If there is a new wording, that is the one that applies.
- Compare the wording of the ruling with the conditions of paragraph 2 of CMU Resolution No. 168.
- Calculate what has already been paid and what difference is being claimed.
- File an application with the territorial authority — separately for each recipient, and through legal representatives for minors.
- Record the response. An authority's silence is challenged as inaction; a written refusal is challenged as an unlawful decision.
- Apply to the administrative court. Check the filing deadline as of the date of filing — it depends on exactly what is being challenged.
Have you received a refusal, or is the authority staying silent? Send me the medical expert commission's ruling and the authority's written response — that is enough for me to tell you whether there are grounds for a claim and exactly what should be challenged: the inaction or the decision. Write or call. Consultations are held in Ukrainian or Russian; written communication in English is available.
Deadlines, risks, and common mistakes
- Considering the matter closed after the first payment. This is the most costly mistake in this category of cases.
- Not tracking a new commission ruling. The family is not always notified of it, yet it is exactly what changes the legal basis for the payment.
- Going to court without a written response from the authority. The court assesses a specific decision or a specific instance of inaction.
- Missing the deadline to apply to the administrative court. It is short and runs from a specific event — check it as of the date of filing.
- Filing a single application "on behalf of the family." The right is individual: each recipient has their own share and their own application.
- Confusing payments meant for different agencies. The procedure differs between the civil protection service, the Armed Forces, and the National Police.
Frequently asked questions
Can the difference be claimed if a payment has already been received?
Yes, the subject of the claim in such cases is specifically the difference between the amount due and the amount already paid. In the case reviewed, the court ordered the authority to make the payment taking into account the amounts already paid.
What should be done if the authority does not respond to an application?
An authority's inaction is challenged in administrative court separately. That is exactly what happened in the case reviewed: first the court found the inaction in reviewing the applications unlawful, and only afterward did the refusal itself become the subject of the dispute.
Can the authority refuse based on its own assessment of the circumstances of death?
Such refusals happen, but they are reviewed by the court together with the valid medical expert commission ruling and the departmental documents on participation in the operations. In the case reviewed, the refusal was declared unlawful and set aside.
Who receives the payment if there are several recipients?
The amount is distributed in equal shares among all recipients defined by law. For minor children, legal representatives act on their behalf.
How long does such a dispute take?
The timeframe depends on the court instances and the authority's conduct. In the case reviewed, about four and a half months passed between the first-instance decision and the appellate court's ruling, and this was preceded by a separate dispute over inaction. There is no universal timeframe.
Is a lawyer necessary if the documents are already available?
Formally, a family can apply on its own. In practice, the cost of a mistake here is measured in millions: what matters is correctly choosing what to challenge, meeting the deadline, and the completeness of the evidence regarding the circumstances and place where the duties were performed.