Legal nuances of implementation by members of military servicemen’s families the rights to housing and utility benefits

Abstract

The article notes that the legal aspects of providing housing and utility benefits for family members of military personnel are particularly relevant and sensitive at the same time since this category of persons needs special support from the state in connection with the fact that military personnel, standing on the guard of the security of Ukraine, often sacrifice their health and life, and therefore, as gratitude and compensation from the state of such victims, preferential housing and utility services should be provided both to the military personnel themselves and their family members.
 The author of the article has proved that after the death of a person discharged from military service who received a disability during military service, the need for additional social protection for dependent family members does not disappear, but rather increases, and therefore the provision of such a benefit can- not be terminated after the death of a person released from military service. In order to maximally protect family members who have lost such a close person, discharged from military service, who became a person with a disability during military service, it should be provided that the provision of benefits provided for in Part 5 of Art. 12 of the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Military Men and Members of Their Families” [5], family members after the death of a person discharged from military service, who received a disability during military service, are not terminated. This will contribute to legal certainty, which means that it will significantly reduce the likelihood of litigation regarding these issues.
 The article states that in order to be recognized as having the status of “family member of a service- man”, it is sufficient to have at least one of three conditions: (1) blood (family) ties or marital relations with a serviceman; (2) permanent residence with a serviceman; (3) running a joint household with a serviceman, and not all three together.
 It was established that the legal constructions “family member of a serviceman” and “family member dependent on a serviceman” are not identical categories. Establishing the circle of dependents of a ser- viceman is not used to provide housing, while housing is provided to a serviceman and members of his family. The content of the specified decision does not give grounds for the conclusion that, for example, an adult daughter who got married automatically ceases to be a member of the plaintiff’s family as a military serviceman. To resolve the issue of whether a child of a serviceman who has reached the age of majority and is married remains a member of his family, it is necessary to clarify the issue of joint residence and management of a joint household.