The Supreme Court has changed its approach to the discharge of military personnel on grounds of caring for family members

This is stated in an analysis of the Supreme Court’s ruling in case No. 520/14746/25.

The Supreme Court has established a new approach to disputes concerning the discharge of military personnel from service on family grounds.

This concerns cases where a serviceman is required to care for a relative with a disability, but the command refuses permission on the grounds that there are other first- or second-degree relatives.

In its ruling of 29 April 2026 in case No. 520/14746/25, the court effectively moved away from a purely formalistic approach. The Supreme Court emphasised that what matters is not merely the legal presence of a relative in the documents, but their actual ability to provide care.

What happened in the case

The claimant – a member of the Armed Forces of Ukraine – submitted a request for discharge on the basis of paragraph 13 of point 3 of part 12 of Article 26 of the Law of Ukraine “On Military Duty and Military Service”.

The reason given was the need for constant care for his mother, who has a Group I disability and, according to the conclusion of the medical advisory commission, requires external assistance.

The military unit refused to grant the discharge. It explained its decision on the grounds that the woman has a granddaughter – the daughter of a military serviceman.

As the granddaughter is a second-degree relative and does not require care herself, the command concluded that she was the one who could provide the necessary care for her grandmother.

This position was upheld by the courts of first instance and appeal. They noted that the law does not require the carer to live with the person in need of assistance.

The courts also pointed out that the fact that the granddaughter has children of her own and a husband who is a military serviceman is not sufficient grounds to consider caring for her grandmother impossible.

How the Supreme Court assessed the case

During the review of the case, the Supreme Court adopted a comprehensive approach to interpreting the law.

The claimant insisted that the granddaughter could not be considered a family member within the meaning of the Family Code of Ukraine, as she did not live with her grandmother.

However, the Supreme Court noted that the concept of a “family member” has no universal definition in legislation.

In the Housing Code of Ukraine, it is linked to shared living arrangements and cohabitation. At the same time, in the Tax Code of Ukraine and anti-corruption legislation, it is primarily linked to the degree of kinship.

The Supreme Court also noted that in the Law of Ukraine “On the Status of War Veterans and Guarantees of Their Social Protection”, the circle of family members of deceased veterans is defined separately and includes, in particular, parents, children in cases provided for by law, and dependants of the deceased.

In view of this, the court concluded that, for the purposes of discharge from military service, the concept of “first- or second-degree relatives” must be interpreted more broadly – based on the fact of a family relationship, and not merely on cohabitation.

Actual ability to provide care

A key aspect of the decision was the distinction between two concepts: the legal existence of a relative and the actual ability to provide care.

Legal existence means that a person formally exists in documents or registers.

The actual ability to provide care is the factual capacity to meet the needs of a person requiring external assistance.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the requirement for the absence of other family members is not limited to their physical absence.

Such cases may also include situations where relatives are objectively unable to care for the person. For example, due to being held captive, imprisoned or performing military service.

Why the family status certificate was significant

Separately, the Supreme Court drew attention to the evidence.

The lower courts had effectively ignored the certificate verifying the military serviceman’s family status, approved by the head of the territorial recruitment centre.

This certificate stated that the claimant was the only person capable of providing the necessary care for his mother.

The Supreme Court deemed the disregard of such evidence to be a significant procedural violation.

What this means for military personnel

The Supreme Court also referred to its previous rulings of 27 February 2025 in case No. 380/16966/24 and of 7 May 2025 in case No. 420/30227/24.

The court reached a conclusion regarding discharge from military service for the purpose of providing full-time care for parents with a Group I or II disability.

For discharge to be granted, it is sufficient either that there are no other relatives of the first or second degree of kinship, or that it is confirmed that such relatives themselves require care, as determined by the Medical and Social Expert Commission (MSEC) or the Medical Commission (MC).

At the same time, the Supreme Court suggested that the absence of family members should also be understood to mean their actual inability to provide care.

This means that courts and military authorities must verify the actual state of affairs, rather than limiting themselves to the formal presence of a relative.

In particular, it is necessary to ascertain where the potential carer lives, whether they have the physical and financial capacity to care for the sick person, whether they have young children, what their job is, and their state of health and family circumstances.

Reports on living conditions, which confirm that a person with a disability lives alone, must also be properly assessed.

Consequently, the formal presence of a relative should no longer automatically block a serviceman’s right to discharge if that relative is objectively unable to provide care.

As reported by ThePublic, Yuriy Gudymenko, head of the NGO “Ukrainian Association Mriya” and head of the Public Anti-Corruption Council at the Ministry of Defence, stated that for demobilisation in the Ukrainian Defence Forces, it is necessary either to robotise the army more actively or to find more people for service.

Follow us on Telegram