Published on 22 June 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 31682/19
Anatoliy Grygorovych GERMANENKO
against Ukraine
lodged on 6 June 2019
communicated on 2 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the refusal to grant the applicant a one-time disability compensation payment. It raises issues under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
On 28 February 2018 a medical commission established that the applicant, who had performed compulsory military service and had participated in combat operations in Afghanistan in 1987-1989, suffered from second-group disability for life as a result of a disease connected with the performance of military-service duties in a combat zone.
In April 2018 the applicant applied for a one-time disability compensation payment under the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Members of Their Families”. By a decision of 25 May 2018, the Ministry of Defence rejected his request on the ground that his disability had been established more than three months after his discharge from military service.
On 11 October and 26 December 2018 respectively, the first-instance court and the court of appeal upheld that decision. They held, in particular, that the right to a one-time disability payment arose only upon the formal establishment of a disability connected with military service and that, accordingly, the legally relevant date for assessing the applicant’s eligibility for such payment was 28 February 2018, when his disability was officially recognised as service-related. The legislation in force on that date was therefore applicable to his claim.
The courts further found that the applicable legislation – section 16 of the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Members of Their Families” – treated conscript servicemen differently from other servicemen as regards the time-limits relevant for entitlement to the payment. In particular, under sub-section 5 servicemen other than conscript servicemen, as well as persons discharged from military service, could obtain the payment even after expiry of the three-month period following discharge where the disability resulted from an illness or accident connected with military service, whereas sub-section 6 confined entitlement of conscript servicemen to cases where disability had been established during military service or within three months following discharge. The courts concluded that, since the applicant’s disability had been established long after his discharge from military service performed as a conscript in 1989, he had no entitlement to the payment.
By ruling of 13 February 2019, the Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings, finding that the case was one of minor complexity and that the impugned judgment was therefore not amenable to cassation review.
Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, in substance taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complains that he was denied access to a statutory disability compensation scheme on discriminatory grounds related to the type of military service previously performed by him.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was the applicant a victim of discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in that, as a former conscript serviceman, he was excluded from entitlement to a one-time disability payment because his service-related disability had been established more than three months after discharge from military service, whereas different entitlement conditions applied to other former servicemen?