The solution is there, but the money isn't: how to ensure actual payments to military personnel

Did the court order the payment of financial support, but the service member received only part of the expected amount? It is advisable to request the calculations, verify each component and decide in advance how the decision will be carried out.

This was emphasized by an advocate specializing in pension law and social security for military personnel and a Ph.D. Olena Voronkova during the webinar «Legal protection for military personnel: from the calculation of financial support and indexation to the actual receipt of funds».

The event took place on October 19 at the initiative of the UNBA NextGen in the Kharkiv region. The meeting was moderated by the Committee’s regional representative Kateryna Dyoma.

According to the speaker, certain agencies implement recalculation decisions in a way that minimizes payments. They retroactively reduce the components of monetary compensation for the period of service, even if the individual has already left the service. The base salary, military rank allowance, and seniority allowance are recalculated, while the bonus and allowance for special service conditions are significantly reduced.

According to O. Voronkova, there is only one way to detect such underpayment. You must request information from the agency regarding the components of the financial compensation before and after the decision was implemented, as well as the amount actually received by the client. «If you were expecting 150,000 UAH, but the client received 10,000, then you know there’s a mistake. Check the calculations — there’s usually a mistake there», - the advocate advised.

In her practice, filing a motion for enforcement did not help; only a new lawsuit yielded results. Most judges consider such a dispute to be a new one.

A separate risk is a lack of funding. In the speaker’s experience, funds are usually paid out three to four months or even a year after the decision becomes final, but there are also longer delays. One solution is to file a motion with the court to change the method of enforcement after receiving notification of the amount due. The key is to replace the phrase «order the calculation and payment of» with «order the collection of» a specific amount. In cases where the court granted such a motion, the funds were received in about a month. However, not all courts agree to apply this mechanism to disputes over financial support.

Another option is to immediately include a claim for the recovery of a specific amount in the complaint. In that case, the calculation must be detailed and accurate. If the court grants the claim, there will be no need to separately seek enforcement. However, some judges grant such claims only partially and order only the transfer of financial support.

Responding to questions from participants, O. Voronkova explained that an expert opinion on the calculation is relevant precisely when an advocate requests the recovery of a specific amount. However, it does not guarantee the outcome.

The speaker described judicial oversight of the enforcement of decisions as an effective tool, although courts are reluctant to fine heads of agencies.

In her opinion, in overburdened courts particularly in Kyiv and Zhytomyr a new lawsuit will be heard faster than judicial oversight can be established. In the regions, oversight can be initiated in parallel with a new lawsuit. However, even established oversight does not guarantee proper enforcement. If an agency cites a change in legislation, the court may accept this argument and the client will lose several months.

Previously advocates explained what mistakes could hinder an appeal against a commander’s actions, why military personnel are not credited with «combat» service and why uniform criteria for payments are necessary.