On Wednesday, 10 September 2025, the Second Senate, in public part of the plenary session in the form of written proceedings, deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of Olesia Bervenenko.

During the plenary session, the judge-rapporteur in the case, Serhii Riznyk, presented the content of the constitutional complaint, the grounds for initiating constitutional proceedings, and the applicant's arguments.

As noted by the rapporteur, O.P. Bervenenko appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to verify the compliance of certain provisions of Article 1.2 of the Law of Ukraine “On One-Time Financial Assistance for Damage to Life and Health Caused to Employees of Critical Infrastructure Facilities, civil servants, and local government officials as a result of the Russian Federation's military aggression against Ukraine” dated 20 March 2023 No. 2980-IX (hereinafter, the “Law”) with the Constitution of Ukraine.

In accordance with Article 1 of the Law, the right to the assignment and payment of one-time monetary assistance for damage to life and health is granted to persons from among employees of critical infrastructure facilities, civil servants, local government officials who have become disabled due to injury, mutilation, concussion or illness related to the performance of their official (service, professional) duties during the period of military aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine in areas where military (combat) operations were conducted after 24 February 2022 or in areas that were subjected to bombing, air strikes and other armed attacks. According to the Law, in the event of the death of the aforementioned persons, a one-time financial assistance for damage to life and health shall be awarded and paid to their family members.

The subject of the constitutional complaint considers certain provisions of Article 1.2 of the Law, namely “after 24 February 2022” and “after that date,” to be unconstitutional and requests that they be reviewed for compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine.

The following arises from the content of the constitutional complaint and the documents and materials attached to it.

In 2014, as a result of shelling in the city of Avdiivka, the father of Bervenenko O.P., who was an employee of a critical infrastructure facility in the city of Avdiivka, Donetsk region, was killed.

On 16 July 2024, the applicant applied to Central Administration of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Donetsk Oblast (hereinafter the Administration) for a one-time financial assistance as a family member of a deceased critical infrastructure employee. The Administration refused her application, citing that the Law applies to persons whose life and health were harmed after 24 February 2022.

O.P. Bervenenko appealed to the courts of the judicial system, which refused to satisfy her claims for the assignment of a one-time financial assistance.

The panel of judges of the Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court, by its ruling of 24 February 2025, refused to initiate cassation proceedings.

The subject of the right to a constitutional complaint, justifying the unconstitutionality of certain provisions of Article 1.2 of the Law, emphasises that, by claiming “one-time financial assistance for damage to the life and health caused to her father, she tried to exercise her right, which is guaranteed to her by Article 46.1 of the Constitution of Ukraine”.

In addition, Bervenenko O.P. notes that “depriving her of her right to receive a one-time financial assistance in connection with the death of her father solely because of the date of his death, which is not covered by the contested provision of the Law, violates the essence of the constitutional right to social protection and the constitutional guarantees of unconditional provision of an adequate level of social protection.”

The judge-rapporteur also informed that in order to ensure a full and objective deliberation of the case and the delivery of a reasoned decision by the Court, he had sent requests to state authorities, scientific institutions, higher education establishments, and members of the Scientific and Advisory Council. The judges will be informed in detail about the content of the responses to in camera part of the plenary session.

The Second Senate examined the case materials in public part of the plenary session and proceeded to in-camera part of the plenary session.

The plenary session was attended by the authorised representative of the subject of the constitutional complaint, lawyer Yulia Naumenko.

Public part of the plenary session is available on the official website of the Court under the heading “Archive of video broadcasts of sessions”.