C Explanatory memorandum
by Ms Lesia Zaburanna, rapporteurNote
1 Introduction
1. The Russian Federation full-scale
war of aggression against Ukraine has produced the largest cohort
of combat veterans in Europe since the Second World War.
Note In Ukraine, the number of veterans
and their family members totals 5-6 million, or approximately 15 %
of Ukraine's 38 million population.
Note More than 2 million people
hold veteran status. Of the total 2,014,623 veterans, 1,471,193
have the status of combatant (UChB), while 159,132 have been granted
the status of a person with a war-related disability. While conscription
applies to men aged 25-60, the average age of a veteran is estimated
to be around 45 years. Over 75 000 women serve in the Ukrainian
Armed Forces, constituting 21 % of the officer corps.
Note In
addition, increasing rearmament and the reintroduction of conscription
in some countries signals that veteran communities across Europe
will continue to grow in coming years. Historical experience shows
that veteran reintegration is a decades-long endeavour requiring
planning, resources, and policy of inclusiveness. For example, post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) prevalence among Balkans veterans remained
high a decade after the fighting.
Note
2. However, Europe’s current approach is deeply fragmented: definitions
vary, entitlements and rights granted are inconsistent, and vulnerable
groups such as women veterans, family carers and cross-border veterans
are systematically underserved. The rapporteur believes that successful
policies and actions in this area will strengthen social cohesion,
democratic stability and human rights at national and European level
and will serve as a valuable benchmark for assessing the ability
of European countries to provide veterans with the dignified life
they deserve.
3. For the purpose of the report, the rapporteur took into consideration
the hearings of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable
Development that were held in the framework of the preparation of
the report of Mr Jan Filip Libicki (Poland, EPP/CD) on “The need
for systemic support to Ukrainian soldiers who became disabled as
a result of hostilities”
Note and of the joint hearing held on
veterans with disabilities by the same committee and the sub-committee
on Disability, Multiple and Intersectional Discrimination (of the
Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination).
Note She drew on historical
experience and effective national policies to develop a European
benchmark for veterans’ human rights.
4. In the course of preparing this report, the rapporteur conducted
detailed substantive consultations with a number of civil society
organisations working on veteran policy in Ukraine, including Veteran
Hub (Ветеран Хаб),
Note Principle (Принцип),
Note Legal Hundred (Юридична сотня)
Note and Place of Opportunities (Простір Можливостей).
Note These organisations have produced
a comprehensive policy framework for Ukrainian veterans, including
a well-being model, veteran journey mapping, target support models
for different veteran profiles and their families, and financial
calculations for proposed entitlements. Their work, carried out
in partnership with the Ministry for Veterans Affairs, contributed
significantly to the evidence base and policy proposals underpinning
this report.
2 Defining “veteran” in a European context:
scope and inclusivity
5. National definitions of “veteran”
(“ancient combattant” in French
NoteNote) range from narrow
(combat or international operations abroad only) to broad (any military
service, including conscription and reserve as in Ukraine and France).
Indeed, a comparative analysis of the definitions used in different
countries reveals a very wide range of concepts. At the narrow end,
several Nordic States reserve “veteran” for those who served in combat
or international operations abroad. At the broad end, countries
such as France and the United Kingdom extend the term to anyone
who has served, including national-service conscripts and reservists.
The United States ties the status to active-duty service and discharge
conditions, then layers entitlements by service-connection. Ukraine,
set by the Law "On the Status of War Veterans and Guarantees of
Their Social Protection" and administered by the Ministry for Veterans
Affairs, recognises distinct legal categories – combatants (UBD), persons
with a war‑related disability (OIVV), and family members of the
fallen (ChSZ) – and increasingly frames the whole community as “Defenders
of Ukraine” (“Захисники і Захисниці”), women and men. In Ukraine,
foreign nationals and stateless persons who have served side by
side with Ukrainians in the ranks of the Defence Forces have the
same right to recognition of their contribution as Ukrainian citizens.
Ukraine guarantees equal access to obtaining Veteran Status for
all service members, irrespective of citizenship.
Note In Ukraine, the protective status
is acquired even before the end of military service.
6. A narrow definition leaves combat-wounded conscripts, reservists,
territorial-defence personnel and the families of the fallen outside
the entitlement perimeter at the moment they most need protection.
7. The rapporteur is in favour of a shared definition across
the continent that helps determine entitlement, statistical comparability,
cross-border portability of rights and parliamentary oversight.
8. In addition, she favours the more comprehensive end of this
spectrum – a definition wide enough to capture all who served and
those who depend on them. Indeed, a comprehensive definition should
ensure the inclusion of combat-wounded, all persons who served independently
of their gender, sexual orientation and backgrounds, international
volunteers, former prisoners of war, and families of the fallen.
9. The rapporteur thus proposes a working definition as a starting
point for consideration, wide enough to encompass all who served
in the armed forces and those who depend on them, while leaving
the calibration of specific entitlements to member States. The following
definition is therefore proposed: any person who has performed military
service in the armed forces of a member State – including conscripts,
reservists, peacekeepers, personnel of recognised resistance and
territorial-defence formations – and who has been released from
such service. Family members of the fallen and personnel missing
in action should be covered by a parallel framework.
10. Furthermore, tailored attention should be paid to the following
categories: combat-wounded and veterans with disabilitie,
Note women veterans, LGBTI
veterans, veterans from minority and migrant backgrounds, veterans
of international missions, former prisoners of war, and veterans
returning from active conflict.
3 Historical
experience of the reintegration of veterans after 1945
11. Europe and the USA have faced
and dealt with the question of caring for veterans before, and the
post-1945 record is the closest precedent for the scale now facing
the continent. The demobilisation after the Second World War returned
tens of millions of combatants to civilian life within a few years.
The systems built to absorb them – and the places where those systems
failed – are not history for its own sake. They are a tested evidence
base for the standard this report proposes. Three lessons emerge,
each of which maps onto an operative conclusion, as described below.
12. First, a comprehensive economic package works. The United
States Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 – the “GI Bill of Rights” –
bundled funded education and training, guaranteed home loans and unemployment
support into a single entitlement. It moved millions of veterans
through universities and into home ownership within a decade
Note and is widely credited with building
the post-war American middle class. The lesson is structural: the
domains this report treats as a connected whole-of-life standard
(education, housing, employment) deliver most when they are guaranteed
together rather than as disconnected benefits.
13. Second, selective or neglectful systems entrench grievance.
The same “GI Bill” that built a middle class delivered its benefits
unequally: administered through local and segregated institutions,
it largely excluded Black veterans from its housing and education
gains, widening rather than closing a social divide.
Note In the Soviet Union, disabled Second
World War veterans were celebrated in official rhetoric but often
received inadequate support in practice. Although accounts of the
systematic removal of disabled veterans from major cities have become
part of popular historical memory, recent archival research suggests
that these narratives considerably overstate what actually occurred.
Nevertheless, the marginalisation of many disabled veterans remains
well documented. The two cases point the same way: where support
is selective, late or used to make veterans invisible, the cost
is paid in social fracture. This is the historical form of the “postcode
lottery” and the social-cohesion risk. This is why the report frames
veteran support as a human-rights obligation rather than discretionary
welfare.
14. Third, mental health was the systematic blind spot, and returning
captives were not always allowed a dedicated track to meet their
specific needs. Post‑war systems were built around the visible wound. Psychological
injury – then “combat fatigue” or “war neurosis” – was under-recognised
and under-treated for decades, a gap whose consequences surfaced
long after the parades ended. Among them, returning prisoners of
war were a distinct case. For example, the Federal Republic of Germany
legislated specifically for them in its 1950 Heimkehrergesetz (Returnees
Law) as hundreds of thousands came back from Soviet captivity, acknowledging
that captivity demanded its own legal and material response.
Note Both points are covered in this report
– the standardised mental-health entitlement and the specialised
prisoners of war and torture-survivor pathways that Ukraine is building
today.
15. In addition, two institutional legacies of this period still
shape European practice. France consolidated its veterans’ administration
around the “Office national des anciens combattants” (today “Office
national des combattants et des victimes de guerre” or ONaCVG
Note), giving veterans
a permanent public interlocutor. The United Kingdom chose instead
to absorb most veteran needs into universal post-war institutions,
the National Health Service (NHS) from 1948 among them,
Note supplemented by a strong charitable
sector. The two routes – a dedicated focal point versus integration
into mainstream services – frame the institutional choice member States
still face.
16. The overarching lesson is that societies that planned reintegration
in advance, and resourced it generously and inclusively, fared better
than those that improvised after the fact. Europe is once again
facing its largest veteran cohort since 1945. The rapporteur strongly
believes that it is time to establish the standard before the need
peaks, rather than decades later.
4 Importance
of a coherent veteran policy today in Europe: a human rights obligation
17. Four structural failures underlie
the European veteran file. First, fragmentation: no shared definition
as described above, no minimum standards, no Council of Europe instrument
– veteran status remains a national silo. Second, an invisible burden:
mental health, women veterans, family carers and cross‑border veterans
are systematically under-counted and under-resourced. Third, a postcode
lottery: entitlements depend on where a veteran lives, within and
between States, in big cities or in rural zones. Fourth, reactive
policymaking: States build systems late and under pressure, resulting
in lost opportunities for cross-learning and a patchwork of benefits.
Historical lessons from post-1945 reintegration highlight the need
for comprehensive, connected support packages and caution against
selective, neglectful or invisible systems.
18. The rapporteur believes that veteran policy must move beyond
welfare, becoming a pillar of social cohesion and democratic stability.
Conversely, inaction carries a direct cost to these. Large veteran
cohorts that are left unsupported do not remain quiet: unmet medical
both physical and mental-health needs, joblessness and a sense of
broken faith with the State feed isolation, family breakdown, substance
misuse and elevated suicide. Perceived neglect hardens into grievance
that anti-democratic and hostile actors are quick to exploit. Ukraine’s
own data already register the strain: 24 % of veterans perceive
community tensions, nearly double the non-veteran rate.
Note Veteran policy is therefore not
only a welfare question but a question of social cohesion, democratic
stability and the protection of human rights; where support fails,
the cost is paid in fractured communities, not in budget lines alone.
19. The risks of inadequate veteran policy extend beyond social
tension. Unmet real needs, combined with declarative rather than
substantive state support and irrational public spending, create
a cascading chain of negative consequences: social discontent leads
to destabilisation, which in turn undermines mobilisation capacity;
fear of repeated conscription drives emigration of working-age population;
veterans may seek employment with foreign private military companies;
and reduced economic participation diminishes tax revenue. In addition,
a large dissatisfied veteran cohort creates a vulnerability to manipulation
by hostile actors, particularly during election cycles.
20. The Council of Europe’s unique role is then to frame veterans’
welfare as a human-rights obligation, using its legal instruments
to set standards across member States. The rapporteur considers
that veteran policy should also be viewed through the lens of human
rights and social rights, complementing national defence policies.
21. She believes that the Council of Europe is the best place
to draw up a recommendation for member States on the rights and
well-being of veterans. As a starting point, she would like to recall
the fundamental rights described in the European Convention on Human
Rights (ETS No. 5) (the Convention) and the European Social Charter
(revised), ETS No. 163, “the revised Charter” (ESC (Revised)), as
basic provisions for drafting such a recommendation, in the following
table:
|
Areas
of concern
|
The
Convention / ESC (Revised) provisions
|
|
Suicide prevention; quality
of medical care
|
Art. 2 of the Convention
(positive obligation to protect life)
|
|
Denial of essential care
to the combat-wounded
|
Art. 3 of the Convention
(inhuman or degrading treatment)
|
|
Mental health, housing,
family reunion
|
Art. 8 of the Convention
(private and family life)
|
|
Non-discrimination (women,
disabled, LGBTI veterans)
|
Art. 14Note of
the Convention
|
|
Pensions and compensation
|
Protocol 1, Art. 1 of
the Convention
|
|
Health protection; social
security; medical assistance
|
Art. 11, 12, 13 of the
ESC (Revised)
|
|
Rights of persons with
disabilities
|
Art. 15Note of
the ESC (Revised)
|
|
Protection against poverty
and exclusion
|
Art. 30 of the ESC (Revised)
|
|
Right to housing
|
Art. 31 of the ESC (Revised)
|
|
Non-discrimination
|
Article E of the ESC
(Revised)
|
22. The rapporteur also welcomes
the relevance of the Council of Europe Action Plan for Ukraine,
entitled “Resilience, Recovery and Reconstruction” covering the
years 2023 to 2026.
Note For example, within this framework,
the Council of Europe Project “Strengthening the social dimension
in Ukraine”
Note aims to ensure that general public
and people from vulnerable groups, including war-affected population
in Ukraine, benefit from targeted social protection and support.
The rapporteur would like the issue of war veterans to be given
greater attention in the forthcoming action plan.
23. The rapporteur will next move to gap-mapping and the policy
model.
5 Mapping
the gaps: areas requiring urgent action
24. Research
Note and
practice reveal significant gaps across healthcare, mental health,
disability access, employment, education, housing, social reintegration,
discrimination, family support, support for former prisoners of
war, cross-border veterans, data and oversight.
25. The first gap concerns healthcare and rehabilitation. By December
2024, 40 % of veterans in Ukraine cited a need for medical care,
significantly above non-veterans (30 %).
Note Additional evidence suggests
that many injured veterans receive neither timely nor adequate services
in State hospitals, prompting them to seek costly private options.
Note Long waits within the State healthcare
system are driving veterans towards costly private care; there is
unequal access to prosthetics, rehabilitation for brain injuries
and complex trauma surgery. Member States must quickly provide complete
medical rehabilitation and prosthetics.
26. The second area concerned is that of mental health and suicide.
PTSD, depression, substance abuse, psychological trauma and head
injuries are just a few examples, all of which are associated with
an increased risk of suicide. Stigma deters those affected from
seeking help. Peer-support models work but are not harmonised at
European level. This issue was rightly highlighted by Mr Libicki
in his report.
27. As described in Mr Libicki’s report, barrier-free environments
for the disabled are essential. Member States should put in place
adequate prosthetic supply chains, make accessibility for buildings,
transports and workplaces a must-have.
28. Employment, education and reskilling are keys to the return
to civilian life. States must facilitate return to work and ensure
that skills acquired in a military context can be transferred to
the civilian sector, actively combat employer prejudice, provide
robust transition services, and guarantee full recognition of military qualifications.
29. Housing and homelessness are a huge issue for veterans. Dedicated
pathways exist in the UK but are absent or embryonic in most member
States. In Ukraine, the Council of Europe Development Bank has developed
housing initiatives, including preferential housing loans for veterans.
Note
30. It is a fact that multiple forms of discrimination prevent
their reintegration into society: hiring discrimination; mental‑health
stigma; and LGBTI veterans (discharged under historical provisions).
During the joint hearing of sub-committee on Disability, Multiple
and Intersectional Discrimination (of the Committee on Equality
and Non‑Discrimination) with the Committee on Social Affairs, Health
and Sustainable Development, Ukrainian women soldiers and veterans
testified the specific barriers they are facing (motherhood, sexual violence
in service, lack of female-only services). They expressed the difficulties
to return to civilian life, after living in a military community.
31. Member States must ease the burden on families and carers.
Spouses, children and parents carry heavy unpaid care. Bereaved
families face procedural and emotional barriers to recognition and
compensation.
32. The rapporteur underlines that families of veterans should
be formally defined and recognised as beneficiaries of veteran policy
from the first day of the veteran’s combat experience. Family members
requiring recognition include, as a minimum: children of veterans
(with unconditional priority for education support, free school
and kindergarten meals, and priority enrolment in childcare); spouses
and partners, including non‑registered partners (with psychological
support and medical services as priority entitlements); parents
of veterans, especially mothers, where the veteran has no spouse
or children; and persons who provide care for a veteran with a disability,
regardless of formal family ties. Distinct support tracks should
be established for families of veterans with different experiences:
families of active service members, families of veterans with disabilities,
families of the fallen, families of prisoners of war, and families
of those missing in action.
33. Former prisoners of war need specialised medical, psychological,
and legal support, and records of their captivity should serve as
important evidence for accountability.
34. The situation of cross-border veterans is not always easy.
Non-portable pensions, difficulty to obtain the disability status
and healthcare for those living outside the State they served is
a European issue that should be solved. Foreign volunteers, notably
the International Legionnaires fighting in Ukraine,
Note should equally be recognised.
35. Lastly, there is a lack of data and oversight. Few States
collect veteran-specific outcome data. Scrutiny is thin outside
the largest militaries. Parliamentarians have a crucial role to
play here in reviewing and monitoring the effective implementation
and improvement of policies.
6 A
policy model designed to cover the human rights of veterans
36. Veterans and their families
deserve a unified, comprehensive model of support that responds
to every stage of post-service life. For too long, many countries
have relied on fragmented, charity-driven systems that leave critical
gaps in care and entitlements. The rapporteur proposes a “whole-of-life”
standard grounded in binding legal obligations, ensuring that mental
health, physical rehabilitation, employment, education, housing, economic
agency, family support, and recognition are guaranteed – not discretionary
– rights. By anchoring each domain of support to concrete statutory
provisions, member States can dismantle bureaucratic fragmentation
and deliver genuine well-being for veterans.
37. The rapporteur proposes that such a standard be structured
around a comprehensive well-being framework. Well-being is understood
as encompassing six interconnected domains: health (physical and mental),
relationships and recognition (family, comrades, community), vocation
(education, employment and other meaningful activity), material
security (finances, legal protection and assets), housing and physical environment
(housing, mobility and public space), and life skills and spirituality
(resilience, long-term planning, sense of purpose). A policy that
addresses only some of these domains, while neglecting others, will
fail to achieve sustainable reintegration.
38. Furthermore, support should be explicitly distributed across
clearly defined stages of the veteran journey: the beginning of
military service (baseline data collection and information about
the future pathway), the transition from military to civilian life
(planning, bureaucratic simplification), the recovery period, civilian
life, retirement and end-of-life care and memorialisation. The rapporteur
proposes that member States establish a defined recovery period
of at least three years following discharge, during which veterans
receive enhanced, proactive support across all domains of well-being.
This recovery period should restart if the veteran returns to service
and is discharged again.
39. It is essential that public systems recognise the multiplicity
of statuses and conditions that a single veteran may experience
simultaneously. A veteran may also be an internally displaced person,
a person with a disability, or a person in difficult life circumstances.
National data systems should track these intersecting statuses so
that entitlements are coordinated and no one is treated as multiple
separate cases by different agencies.
40. A comparative analysis of selected national policies highlights
tested building blocks and lessons from national practice. The rapporteur
proposes to directly lift best practice. Examples range from dedicated ministries
and integrated digital platforms to statutory commitments such as
the UK Armed Forces Covenant, and lifelong service connection presumption
as seen in Canada and the United States. The role of digital government
– such as Ukraine’s Veteran PRO – shows how a single-window portal
can overcome traditional barriers and connect veterans to all available
services efficiently. The Veteran PRO is a flagship innovation (with
a dedicated space in the Diia app), built by the Ministry for Veterans
Affairs with the Ministry of Digital Transformation and United Development
Programme (UNDP) support.
Note It is a single-window digital ecosystem
giving veterans including women veterans and their families one
access point to state and local services – social protection and
payments, housing and infrastructure, transport and utility benefits,
documents and status, education and employment, tax and administrative
relief, sport, and business grants – with plain‑language “how to
apply” guidance and, in Diia, direct services such as finding a
veteran support specialist and establishing war‑disability status.
Historical redress and longitudinal outcome tracking are also benchmarks
of modern, responsive systems. Attention is also given to the special
needs of women veterans, as seen in the joint hearing on 23 June
2026 and the importance of the Veteranka movement.
Note
41. Ukraine has developed several innovative approaches that may
provide valuable lessons for other member States. Its holistic approach
combines digital delivery, municipal case management, and advanced rehabilitation,
with gender-responsive policy and innovative pathways for prisoners
of war and torture survivors. The rapporteur urges member States
to study these lessons proactively before their own veteran populations
grow, incorporating digital, legal, and case management innovations.
42. Ultimately, comprehensive veteran support anchors the social
contract, honours service and strengthens national cohesion. The
rapporteur sees it both as a moral imperative and a practical necessity.
7 Conclusion
43. The scale and urgency of European
veteran needs demand a coherent, unified policy response. The rapporteur
proposes standards and recommendations for comprehensive support
and social cohesion, ensuring that all those who have served – and
their families – are assured dignity, opportunity and recognition throughout
their lives. She describes the first comprehensive benchmark for
veteran policy, focusing on human and social rights, with Ukraine’s
ongoing reforms as a model and mature approaches from the United
Kingdom, France, and the United States as references. She calls
for statutory guarantees, integrated service delivery. She finally
recommends to the Committee of Ministers the drafting of a recommendation
for Council of Europe member States on the rights and well-being
of veterans, aligned with the European Convention on Human Rights
and the Revised European Social Charter, which will be the first
European text to set out human rights common standards for veterans.
44. Supporting veterans is not only an act of gratitude; it is
an investment in social cohesion, democratic resilience and lasting
peace.
