The review was prepared by Kateryna Tsupka , a lawyer and member of the Center for Labor Law and Social Security of the Ukrainian Academy of Law and Economics of the National Academy of Law of Ukraine.
-
Regarding the legality of the non-payment of a pension supplement in the amount of UAH 2,000.00 and indexation for 2022, 2023 in the circumstances of the recalculation of a military serviceman’s pension based on a court decision
By the resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine dated March 13, 2025 in case No. 400/6254/24, the plaintiff’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine dated December 16, 2024 in the exemplary case was left unchanged.
In the exemplary case, a dispute was resolved regarding the correctness of the calculation and payment of a pension to a pensioner – a former military serviceman, to whom the pension authority, based on a court decision, recalculated and paid a pension taking into account the subsistence minimum established on January 1 of the calendar year, and stopped paying a pension supplement of UAH 2,000.00 and indexation for 2022 and 2023.
Based on the results of the consideration of the exemplary case, the Supreme Court refused to satisfy the claims due to the following.
The plaintiff noted that he is a pensioner and has been assigned a pension in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision for Persons Discharged from Military Service and Certain Other Persons.”
The Main Directorate of the State Pension Fund, implementing the decision of the District Administrative Court, when recalculating a pension based on certificates of the amount of cash benefits, illegally canceled the supplement provided for by Resolution No. 713 and indexation for 2022 and 2023, citing the fact that the basic pension amount increased by more than UAH 2,000.00, therefore, a monthly supplement in accordance with Resolution No. 713 is not established, and Resolutions No. 168 and No. 185 also provide that an increase by coefficients of 1.197 and 1.0796 is applied in the event of a pension recalculation in accordance with Law No. 2262-XII, except for recalculations in connection with an increase in cash benefits.
Disagreeing with the above, the plaintiff appealed to the court. Upon the submission of the judge of the Mykolaiv District Administrative Court, the case was referred to the Supreme Court for consideration as an exemplary case. By decision of 16.12.2024, the CAS of the Supreme Court refused to satisfy the claim.
The Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the conclusion of the Supreme Administrative Court that the recalculation of the plaintiff’s pension on the basis of the court decision in the case is considered to have arisen on the basis established by a regulatory legal act, namely due to the increase in the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons established by the Law of Ukraine on the State Budget for a certain year, which resulted in a change in the amount of monetary support for military personnel (official salary) and is the basis for recalculating pensions to former military personnel in accordance with Articles 43, 63 of Law No. 2262-XII. That is, in this case, it does not matter that the pension recalculation was carried out in execution of the court decision, as claimed by the plaintiff, or/and immediately on the basis of a certificate directly submitted by the authorized body to the pension body. The key factor for determining pensions that were reviewed (recalculated) after 03/01/2018 within the meaning of Resolution No. 713 as grounds for terminating or changing the additional payment provided for by this resolution is the increase in the pension after its recalculation in connection with the increase in the amount of monetary support for military personnel , namely the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons established by law on January 1 of the calendar year, as the calculated value for determining the official salaries of military personnel.
In addition, according to the conclusion of the CAS of the Supreme Court, with which the Supreme Court agreed, since paragraph 3, clause 2 of Resolution No. 168 provides that if the recalculation of pensions to individuals is carried out in accordance with Law No. 2262-XII in connection with the increase in the cash support of the relevant categories of military personnel , persons entitled to a pension under the specified Law, and in this case there is such an increase, due to an increase in the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, then in accordance with the specified imperative requirements, the increase coefficient provided for in clause 1 of this Resolution is not applied. That is, the payment of the indexation provided for in Resolution No. 168 is not accrued from the moment of the recalculation of the pension, related to the increase in the cash support of the relevant categories of military personnel , persons entitled to a pension under the specified Law.
We draw attention to the presence in this case of a separate opinion of judges Vlasov Y.L. and Banaska O.O. regarding the resolution and resolution adopted by the Supreme Administrative Court on March 13, 2025 in case No. 400/6254/24, namely the erroneous conclusion on the closure of the appeal proceedings on the appeals of PERSON_2, PERSON_3, PERSON_4, PERSON_5, PERSON_6 against the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of December 16, 2024.
The full text of the resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated March 13, 2025 in case No. 400/6254/24 can be found at the link: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126486062
-
Regarding the indexation of pensions using the coefficient of increase in the average wage (income) in Ukraine for 2018-2020
By the resolution of the Supreme Court of the Judicial Chamber for the consideration of cases on the protection of social rights of the CAS dated April 16, 2025 in case No. 200/5836/24, the plaintiff’s cassation appeal was granted, the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances were canceled, and a new decision was made, which satisfied the administrative claim.
The plaintiff has been receiving an old-age pension since 22.12.2020 in accordance with the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Mandatory State Pension Insurance”. When calculating the pension, the average wage (income) indicator in Ukraine for 2018-2020 in the amount of UAH 9118.81 was used. Believing that he has the right to index the pension, the plaintiff applied to the defendant with a corresponding application, in which he requested to index by increasing the average wage (income) indicator in Ukraine, from which insurance contributions were paid and which is taken into account for calculating the pension (for 2018-2020), by the following increase factors: 1.14 (from March 1, 2022), 1.197 (from March 1, 2023), 1.0796 (from March 1, 2024). However, the defendant refused to make such a recalculation on the grounds that the average wage rate used when assigning the pension is higher than the average wage (income) rate, taking into account the increase coefficients provided for by the Government resolutions for 2019-2023.
Considering the indicated refusal unlawful, the plaintiff appealed to court.
By the decision of the Donetsk District Administrative Court dated November 6, 2024, left unchanged by the resolution of the First Administrative Court of Appeal dated January 13, 2025, the claim was dismissed.
The CAS of the Supreme Court, as part of the SPZSP, disagreed with the above decisions for the following reasons.
By introducing an improved mechanism for annual indexation of pensions, in particular for persons who are entitled to a pension under Law No. 1058-І V , for the sustainability of pension provision for citizens and expenditures for its financing, the state has undertaken to ensure the maintenance of the purchasing power of the population of Ukraine in the face of rising prices by increasing pensions using a new unified mechanism through an increase in the average wage (income) in Ukraine from which insurance contributions were paid and which was taken into account for calculating the pension, which is not stable, and increasing the level of material security of the most vulnerable segments of the population among pensioners.
Further indexation of pensions in accordance with the resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On the indexation of pensions and measures to increase the level of social protection of the most vulnerable segments of the population in 2022” dated February 16, 2022 No. 118, “On the indexation of pension and insurance payments and additional measures to increase the level of social protection of the most vulnerable segments of the population in 2023” dated February 24, 2023 No. 168, is carried out in accordance with Procedure No. 124 by increasing the average wage (income) in Ukraine from which insurance contributions were paid and which is taken into account for calculating the pension as of October 1, 2017 by the appropriate coefficients.
Thus, the provisions of the Procedure for Recalculating Pensions in accordance with Part 2 Art. 42 of Law No. 1058-I V , approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated February 20, 2019 No. 124, are not consistent with the provisions of Part 1 itself. 2 Art. 42 of Law No. 1058-І V , since the indicator, which is increased by the corresponding coefficients, is defined differently:
-
the average wage (income) in Ukraine from which insurance contributions were paid and which is taken into account for calculating the pension (according to the provisions of the Law);
-
the average wage (income) in Ukraine, from which insurance contributions were paid and which is taken into account for calculating the pension, as of October 1, 2017 (according to the provisions of the Procedure).
Taking into account the definition of the general principles of the priority of laws over subordinate legislation, the judicial chamber concluded that the application of the pension indexation, starting from 2020, in accordance with Part 2 Art. 42 of Law No. 1058-I V of the provisions of paragraph 5 of Order No. 124, is unlawful .
A similar legal conclusion is set forth in the Supreme Court resolution of January 13, 2025 in case No. 160/28752/23.
We draw attention to the presence of a separate opinion in this case by judges Bernazyuk Ya.O., Chirkin S.M. and Sharapa V.M. In the opinion of the indicated judges, Order No. 124 does not contradict the content of Part 2 of Article 42 of Law No. 1058-I V , but, on the contrary, establishes a detailed mechanism for its implementation, which corresponds to the nature of a subordinate regulatory legal act. That is, by fixing the appropriate base value, the Government exercised the powers delegated to it to specify the procedure for recalculating pensions, without going beyond the provisions defined by Law No. 1058-I V. Therefore, such an approach ensures internal consistency of legal regulation and is aimed at the practical application of the norm of substantive law in the dynamics of the budget process.
With the full text of the resolution Armed Forces in the composition Judicial Chamber for the Protection of Social Rights of the CAS dated 04/16/2025 in case No. 200/5836/24 can be found at the link: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126667395
-
Regarding the size of the one-time annual cash assistance for the Independence Day of Ukraine
By the resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine dated May 14, 2025 in case No. 440/14216/23, the appeal of the Main Administrative Court of Ukraine in Poltava region was granted, the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine dated March 5, 2024 in the exemplary case was canceled, and a new decision was adopted, which refused to satisfy the claims.
The plaintiff, a person with a war disability of Group II, appealed the actions of the pension authority, which in 2023 paid him an annual one-time cash benefit for the Independence Day of Ukraine in the amount of UAH 2,900 in accordance with the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated July 21, 2023 No. 754, while, in the plaintiff’s opinion, he was entitled to assistance in the amount of eight minimum old-age pensions – UAH 16,744 in accordance with Article 13 of Law No. 3551-ХІІ.
The annual one-time cash payment to persons with disabilities as a result of the war is of an auxiliary and stimulating nature and is not the main source of livelihood for citizens. The payment of this state aid is established by law and does not belong to the components of the constitutional right of citizens to social protection, defined in Art. 46 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which cannot be abolished by law, and therefore the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine as the only legislative body in Ukraine, taking into account the available financial and economic opportunities, may, by adopting laws, change the conditions and procedure for the payment of such a social benefit, provided that constitutional norms and principles are observed.
Thus, having made a cash payment to the plaintiff in the amount of UAH 2,900, the PFU Main Directorate applied the rules of Part 5th century 13 of Law No. 3551-ХІІ in the version of Law No. 2983-ХХ, which is in force both at the time of the emergence of the disputed legal relationship and at the time of resolving the case, was not recognized as unconstitutional, which confirms that the PFU Main Directorate acted on the basis, within the limits of its powers and in the manner specified by law .
The Supreme Court of Ukraine takes into account that the Supreme Court, as part of the judicial chamber for considering cases on the protection of social rights of the CAS, in its resolution dated June 13, 2023 in case No. 560/8064/22 in legal relations that arose after the introduction of martial law in Ukraine, formed a conclusion regarding the amount of the annual one-time cash benefit in 2022 until May 5, according to which, when determining its amount, regulatory legal acts of state authorities that restrict the rights and privileges of war veterans cannot be applied, since they are such that they contradict Article 17 of the Fundamental Law of Ukraine and special legislation.
At the same time, after the adoption of the aforementioned court decision, the legislation was changed by the Verkhovna Rada amending special Law No. 3551-ХІІ and setting out the provisions of Article 13 of this Law in the wording of Law No. 2983-IX (entered into force on April 15, 2023).
Therefore, from April 15, 2023, the procedure for making payments to persons with disabilities as a result of the war, provided for in Article 13 of Law No. 3551-ХІІ, has been regulated differently, by amending special legislation, and not by amending budget legislation with the subsequent adoption by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of a decision on determining the amount of social guarantees.
Thus, the reduction of the claimant’s social benefits on the basis of the relevant legislative changes does not constitute a “deprivation of possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, but must be regarded as an interference with the claimant’s right to peaceful possession of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which must be justified.
In deciding whether such interference was lawful, the Supreme Court relied on the following considerations.
By establishing on 20.03.2023 in the Law of Ukraine No. 2983-IX (entered into force on 15.04.2023), the procedure for assigning a one-time cash payment to persons with disabilities as a result of the war in a new edition, the Verkhovna Rada acted within its own discretionary powers. In turn, the determination by the CMU in 2023 of its smaller amount than before meets the criterion of legality.
The reduction in the amount of the lump sum payment is caused by objective reasons, namely: the desire to balance the state budget in order to properly finance the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations that, through their direct actions, protect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of Ukraine. Taking into account the above, there is no reason to believe that the state did not maintain a fair balance between public and individual interests in the context of restricting the plaintiff’s right to peaceful possession of his property.
At the same time, when determining whether the plaintiff was forced to bear an excessive individual burden as a result of such a restriction, the Supreme Court takes into account that the monetary payment provided for in Part 5th century 13 of Law No. 3551-XII, is not the claimant’s main source of livelihood, but is an additional social guarantee; the claimant has not proven that the reduction in the amount of such payment has put him at risk of lack of means of subsistence or that his living conditions have deteriorated to such an extent that he risks falling below the established subsistence level. Consequently, the claimant was not forced to bear an excessive individual burden and the interference with his right to peaceful possession of property has not violated the essence of his social rights.
Please note that in this case there are two separate opinions (of judges Tkachuk O. S., Banaska O. O., Vlasova Yu. L. and judges Kryvenda O. V., Hrytsiva M. I., Shevtsova N. V.).
The full text of the resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated 05/14/2025 in case No. 440/14216/23 can be found at the link: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127680293
-
Regarding the possibility of appealing a court decision on the assignment of a preferential pension under List No. 2 by legal entities – employers
By the resolution of the Supreme Court of the Judicial Chamber for the Protection of Social Rights of the CAS dated May 13, 2025 in case No. 420/16041/23, the cassation appeal of LLC “Odessa Mekhkolona No. 10” was dismissed, and the resolution of the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal dated May 23, 2024, by which the appeal proceedings on the appeal of LLC “Odessa Mekhkolona No. 10” were closed, was left unchanged.
On August 22, 2022, the plaintiff applied to the Main Directorate of the State Pension Fund in the Odessa region with an application for the assignment of an old-age pension on preferential terms. The Main Directorate of the State Pension Fund in the Lviv region, based on the principle of extraterritoriality, made a decision to refuse to assign a pension due to the lack of a clarifying certificate confirming the preferential length of service.
The decision of the Odessa District Administrative Court of November 28, 2022 in case No. 420/13447/22 declared unlawful and overturned the decision of the Main Directorate of the State Pension Fund in the Lviv region to refuse to grant the plaintiff an old-age pension on preferential terms and obliged the Main Directorate of the State Pension Fund in the Lviv region to re-examine the plaintiff’s application for a pension dated August 22, 2022, taking into account the legal assessment provided by the court in the decision.
On 02.02.2023, the Main Directorate of the PFU in the Lviv region, in compliance with the court decision of 28.11.2022 in case No. 420/13447/22, re-examined the application for the assignment of a pension to the plaintiff and again made a decision to refuse to assign a pension due to the lack of a clarifying certificate of the plaintiff’s preferential service experience under List No. 2. In addition, the defendant noted the absence of an obligation in the decision of the court of first instance to assign a pension to the plaintiff.
Disagreeing with the defendant’s actions and decision, the plaintiff re-applied to the court with this lawsuit and requested that the PFU Main Directorate in the Lviv region be obliged to grant him an old-age pension on preferential terms.
The Odessa District Administrative Court, by its decision dated September 28, 2023 in the case under consideration (No. 420/16041/23), granted the claim.
Deciding on the merits of the case and fully satisfying the claim, the court of first instance proceeded from the validity and provenness of the claims and, accordingly, the illegality of the contested decision of the Main Directorate of the PFU in the Lviv region.
The participants in the case did not appeal the decision of the court of first instance dated September 28, 2023. Instead, the appeal was filed by LLC “Odesa Mekhkolona No. 10” as a person who believes that its rights have been violated.
The company draws attention to the fact that the certification of jobs was not carried out and the clarifying certificate was not issued to the plaintiff. The inclusion of the specified periods in the preferential length of service according to List No. 2 and the assignment of a pension with a reduction in the retirement age entailed actual costs for the payment and delivery of preferential pensions, the reimbursement of which is entrusted to LLC “Odesa Mekhkolona No. 10”.
Closing the appeal proceedings, the appellate court proceeded from the fact that the decision of the Odessa District Administrative Court of September 28, 2023 did not resolve issues of rights, freedoms, interests or obligations of LLC “Odesa Mechanized Column No. 10”. The specified decision does not contain requirements of a binding nature in relation to the complainant (appellant), and the subject of the dispute in this case is the recognition as unlawful and the cancellation of the decision of the pension authority to deny the claimant the assigned old-age pension on preferential terms, as well as the presence of grounds for assigning the claimant the corresponding pension, where the assessment was given exclusively to the issue of the validity of the decision adopted by the State Administrative Service of the Lviv Region.
A person who was not a party to the case must prove that the contested court decision was made regarding his rights, interests and (or) obligations. Such a connection must be obvious and unconditional, and not probable, which means that the complainant must clearly indicate in the appeal in which part of the contested court decision (in the motivational and/or operative part) his rights, interests and (or) obligations are explicitly stated, and which ones.
A decision is one that is made on the rights and obligations of a person who was not involved in the case if the motivational part of the decision contains the court’s conclusions on the rights and/or obligations of this person or if the court directly indicates his rights and/or obligations in the operative part of the decision. In such a case, the decision violates not only the substantive rights of persons not involved in the case, but also their procedural rights, which follow from the provisions of paragraph 1 Art. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that everyone has the right to a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations. Any other legal connection between the complainant and the parties to the dispute cannot be taken into account.
According to the content of the court decision adopted in this case, neither its motivational nor its operative part contains any questions about the rights, freedoms, interests and (or) obligations of LLC “Odessa Mekhkolona No. 10” .
In view of the above, the Trial Chamber considers it necessary to depart from the legal conclusion formed in the Supreme Court’s resolution of 11.11.2024 in case No. 160/7289/22 and others where it was applied, regarding the exercise of the right to appeal, provided for in Part 1 Art. 293 of the CAS of Ukraine, and considers it necessary, in accordance with Part 2 Art. 356 of the CAS of Ukraine to form the following : in cases where the plaintiff is an individual, the defendant is a body of the Pension Fund of Ukraine, and the subject of the dispute concerns the recognition as unlawful of a decision to refuse to grant a pension to a person on preferential terms with a reduction in the retirement age on the basis of the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision”, employers where the person worked, and who accordingly have an obligation to reimburse the actual costs of paying and delivering a preferential pension, do not have the right to appeal such court decisions .
We draw attention to the presence of three separate opinions in this case (Judge Bernazyuk Ya.O., Judge Kovalenko N.V. and Judge Sharapy V.M.)
With the full text of the resolution Armed Forces in the composition Judicial Chamber for the Protection of Social Rights of the CAS dated 05/13/2025 in case No. 420/16041/23 you can find out at the link: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127342982
-
Regarding the establishment of a seniority bonus in the civil service
By the decision of the CAS of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated May 30, 2025 in exemplary case No. 240/7215/24, the claims were partially satisfied.
The dispute in the case arose in connection with the establishment of a seniority bonus for the plaintiff for 2024 in the amount of 30 percent of the official salary, which was calculated taking into account the requirements of clause 12 of section “Final Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2024” No. 3460-IX, the provisions of which are inconsistent with the content of part 1 Art. 52 of the Law of Ukraine “On Civil Service” No. 889-VIII, on the basis of which the specified allowance was accrued and paid to the plaintiff until 01.01.2024.
Thus, Article 52 of Law No. 889-VIII stipulates that the civil service seniority bonus is set at 3 percent of the civil servant’s official salary for each calendar year of civil service experience, but not more than 50 percent of the official salary.
On January 1, 2024, Law No. 3460-IX entered into force, paragraph 12 of the section “Final Provisions” of which states that in 2024, the seniority bonus in the civil service is set at 2 percent of the official salary of a civil servant for each calendar year of civil service experience, but not more than 30 percent of the official salary, and the provisions of Law No. 889-VIII regarding the conditions and procedure for remuneration of civil servants apply insofar as they do not contradict Law No. 3460-IX.
The court established that the features of calculating the seniority bonus introduced by Law No. 3460-IX from January 1, 2024 are part of the reform of the remuneration of civil servants.
Key aspects of this reform are formulated in the Concept of Reforming the Remuneration System of Civil Servants, approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated May 27, 2020 No. 622-r (hereinafter referred to as the Concept), which is part of the Strategy for Reforming Public Administration of Ukraine for the period until 2021.
According to the Concept, the ways to implement it include, in particular, changes to further strengthen the role of official salary as a result of optimizing the salary structure of a civil servant, namely: reducing the maximum seniority bonus to 30 percent (provided that official salaries are increased) or taking into account “effective seniority” as steps in the introduced grading system.
However, the way in which the legislator implemented the reform of civil servant remuneration created a contradiction in the legislation (due to the existence of two laws that regulate the same relations differently) and led to a de facto limitation of the amount of the long-service bonus for civil servants provided for in Law No. 889-VIII, which, based on the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine.
Examining the disputed legal relations, the Court notes that the Law on the State Budget of Ukraine is a law that approves the State Budget of Ukraine and contains provisions on ensuring its implementation during the budget period, that is, it is a general law ( lex generalis ). According to Art. 150 of Law No. 1402-VIII, the remuneration and social guarantees of employees of local court offices are regulated by the norms of the legislation on civil service, taking into account the features determined by this Law. The law that determines the legal status of a civil servant and regulates the relations arising in connection with entering the civil service, its completion and termination is Law No. 889-VIII ( lex specialis ).
Thus, in the disputed legal relations, Law No. 889-VIII, although adopted earlier than Law No. 3460-IX, is a special law.
Considering that after 01.01.2024, the norms of special Law No. 889-VIII have not undergone any changes in terms of the procedure for calculating the seniority bonus, and Law No. 3460-IX, based on its purpose, cannot suspend the effect of individual laws of Ukraine and/or in any way change the legal regulation of social relations determined by other laws of Ukraine, The accrual of seniority bonuses to civil servants in 2024 should take into account the requirements of Article 52 of Law No. 889-VIII – at the level of 3 percent of the official salary of a civil servant for each calendar year of civil service experience, but not more than 50 percent of the official salary.
NB ! By the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine dated 06/25/2025, proceedings were opened on the appeal of the Territorial Department of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine in Zhytomyr region against the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine dated 05/30/2025 in exemplary case No. 240/7215/24.
The full text of the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Ukraine dated 05/30/2025 in case No. 240/7215/24 can be found at the link: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127771732
-
Regarding the limitation of the maximum amount of the survivor’s pension
By the resolution of the Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated June 17, 2025 in case No. 560/5370/24, the cassation appeal of the Main Directorate of the PFU in the Khmelnytskyi region was partially satisfied, and the motivational parts of the decision of the court of first instance and the resolution of the court of appeal, which satisfied the claim, were changed.
The plaintiff is registered with the Main Directorate of the PFU in the Khmelnytskyi region and receives a survivor’s pension in accordance with Article 54 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by the Chernobyl Disaster.”
In May 2023, the plaintiff learned that her survivor’s pension is UAH 41,721.38, however, its amount is limited to the maximum in accordance with Article 67 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by the Chernobyl Disaster” and is UAH 23,610.00 (10 subsistence minimums for persons who have lost their ability to work as of January 1, 2023).
In March 2024, the plaintiff applied to the defendant with a request for payment of a pension without limitation to the maximum amount from 03/20/2024, referring to the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated 03/20/2024 No. 2-рп(ІІ)/2024.
The defendant reported the refusal to recalculate the pension from 03/20/2024 without limiting the maximum amount, citing the fact that the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated 03/20/2024 was made regarding a specific person, is implemented taking into account the specifics of her pension provision, and therefore cannot be applied to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff did not agree with the refusal and went to court.
By the decision of the Khmelnytskyi District Administrative Court dated 05/09/2024, left unchanged by the resolution of the Seventh Administrative Court of Appeal dated 08/26/2024, the claim was granted.
Limitations on the maximum pension amount were first introduced by the Law of Ukraine “On Measures for Legislative Support of Pension System Reform” dated 08.07.2011 No. 3668-VI (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 3668-VI).
However, part. 3 Art. Article 67 of Law No. 796-XII regulates that the maximum pension amount (taking into account allowances, promotions, additional pension, targeted cash assistance, pension for special services to Ukraine, indexation and other pension supplements established by law, except for supplements to allowances for certain categories of persons who have special services to the Motherland) cannot exceed ten subsistence minimums established for persons who have lost their ability to work.
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine in Decision No. 2-r(ІІ)/2024 concluded that the provision of Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Measures for Legislative Support of Pension System Reform” dated 08.07.2011 No. 3668-VI, the first sentence of Part 3 Art. 67 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by the Chernobyl Disaster” dated February 28, 1991 No. 796-XII are inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine (are unconstitutional).
Paragraph 2 of the operative part of the said decision states that the said provisions of Law No. 3668-VI and Law No. 796-XII shall cease to be valid from the date of adoption of this decision.
According to the provisions of Part 2 Art. 152 of the Constitution of Ukraine, laws, other acts or their individual provisions that are recognized as unconstitutional shall lose their force from the date of adoption by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of a decision on their unconstitutionality, unless otherwise established by the decision itself, but not earlier than the date of its adoption. A similar norm in content is also contained in Article 91 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine”.
The defendant, refusing to satisfy the stated requirements, noted that the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated March 20, 2024 No. 2-р(ІІ)/2024 was adopted in relation to a specific person, is implemented taking into account the specifics of his pension provision, and therefore, in the defendant’s opinion, cannot be applied to the plaintiff’s pension provision.
Such conclusions of the defendant are erroneous , since the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is mandatory for execution throughout the territory of Ukraine. The said Decision also applies to the plaintiff, since her pension for the loss of a breadwinner was assigned in accordance with Law No. 796-XII, the provisions of which provide for the application of a limitation on the maximum amount of the pension, which is recognized as unconstitutional.
The full text of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine’s Administrative Court of Cassation dated 06/17/2025 in case No. 560/5370/24 can be found at the link: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128192712
-
Regarding the assignment of a survivor’s pension in the event of a person becoming missing under special circumstances
By the resolution of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Ukraine dated July 17, 2025 in case No. 160/24320/24, the plaintiff’s cassation appeal was partially satisfied, the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances were canceled, and the case was sent for retrial to the court of first instance.
The plaintiff is the wife of a missing serviceman.
On 07.06.2024, the plaintiff was served with a notification that her husband had gone missing during hostilities on 02.06.2024 in the settlement of Volodymyrivka, Volnovakha district, Donetsk region. The husband was supported by his minor daughter and wife.
On August 21, 2024, the plaintiff applied to the territorial body of the pension fund with an application for the assignment of a pension for the loss of a breadwinner.
By the decision of the Main Directorate of the PFU in Ivano-Frankivsk region dated 28.08.2024, the claimant was denied the award of a survivor’s pension. The refusal is justified by the fact that the extract from the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, which indicates the date of registration of the proceedings as 11.06.2024, is dated 21.06.2024. To award a survivor’s pension, the extract must be dated 11.07.2024 or a later date.
Considering the actions and decisions of the Main Directorate of the PFU in the Ivano-Frankivsk region to refuse to grant a pension for the loss of a breadwinner to be unlawful, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court.
By the decision of the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court dated 04.11.2024, the claims were satisfied.
By the resolution of the Third Administrative Court of Appeal dated March 25, 2025, the decision of the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court dated November 4, 2024 was canceled, and a new resolution was adopted, which refused to satisfy the claim.
According to Part 1, 2 of Article 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Status of Persons Missing under Special Circumstances”, a person acquires the status of a person who has disappeared under special circumstances from the moment the information about him/her, contained in the application for the fact of disappearance, is entered into the Unified Register of Persons Missing under Special Circumstances, in accordance with the procedure provided for by this Law, and is considered to have disappeared under special circumstances from the moment the applicant submits an application for the fact of the person’s disappearance. A person is considered to have disappeared under special circumstances until the search for him/her is terminated in accordance with the procedure provided for by this Law.
According to Art. 36 of the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”, a survivor’s pension is assigned […] to disabled family members of a person who, in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Status of Persons Missing under Special Circumstances”, has been granted the legal status of a person missing under special circumstances, regardless of the length of insurance experience. At the same time, a survivor’s pension is assigned to children regardless of whether they were dependent on the breadwinner.
According to para. 2 p. 3 hours 1 Art. 45 of the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”, family members of a person who, in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Status of Persons Missing under Special Circumstances”, has been granted the legal status of a person missing under special circumstances, have the right to receive a pension in connection with the loss of a breadwinner one month from the date of entry of information about the person’s missing in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations or the Unified Register of Persons Missing under Special Circumstances .
The Law of Ukraine “On Mandatory State Pension Insurance” stipulates the need for the applicant to confirm the conditions within one month from the date of entry of information about the missing person into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations or the Unified Register of Persons Missing in Special Circumstances.
At the same time, for the purpose of granting a pension in connection with the loss of a breadwinner, the legislation does not provide for the provision of an extract from the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, dated one month from the date of entry of information about the missing person in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.
The court disagrees with the conclusion of the court of appeal that in this case, the extract from the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations should be dated 07/11/2024 or a later date, and notes that the corresponding right to receive a pension in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned norms arises one month from the date of entry of information about the missing person into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations or into the Unified Register of Persons Missing in Special Circumstances.
The relevant extract from the register of pre-trial investigations dated 06/21/2024 was provided by the plaintiff together with the application for the award of a pension on 08/21/2024, i.e. more than one month after the date of entry of information about the missing person into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.
Thus, the plaintiff complied with the requirements of the law regarding the need to confirm the conditions for the expiration of one month from the date of entering information about the missing person into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations .
However, the courts of previous instances, when resolving this dispute, did not adhere to the principle of adversarial proceedings, dispositive proceedings, and official clarification of all the circumstances of the case, and did not at all examine the question of whether the plaintiff was an incapacitated family member of the person who disappeared, and whether the plaintiff was fully supported by the breadwinner.
Considering that the courts of previous instances violated the norms of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances that are important for the correct resolution of the case, the panel of judges concluded that the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances should be overturned and the case should be remanded to the court of first instance for a new trial.
The full text of the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of Ukraine dated July 17, 2025 in case No. 160/24320/24 can be found at the link: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128924756
-
Regarding the possibility of establishing by a court in separate proceedings in civil proceedings the fact of a person being dependent on a military serviceman for the purpose of further processing a lump sum payment
By the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated April 23, 2025 in case No. 308/17634/23, the Supreme Court of Ukraine accepted for consideration the case regarding the possibility of establishing by the court in separate proceedings in the civil procedure the fact of a person being dependent on a military serviceman for the purpose of further processing a lump-sum cash benefit.
In October 2023, the applicant applied to the court with an application to establish the fact of the person being dependent.
The statement was motivated by the fact that her father was drafted into military service. The notification sent to her family (close relatives) dated 27.12.2022 stated that Sergeant PERSON_3 died while repelling enemy assault actions near the village of. p. A soldier of the Donetsk region, having shown courage and resilience. The notification also indicates that the death was related to the performance of military service duties, and this notification is a document for applying to the RTCC and the Joint Commission on the issue of granting guarantees and compensation.
The applicant indicated that PERSON_3 from June 25, 1991 until the day of his death was registered at the address where she and her daughter PERSON_2 (granddaughter of the deceased), who suffers from insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus type I and is a child with a disability, are also registered and live.
She referred to the fact that PERSON_3 provided her granddaughter with everything she needed for living. Material assistance was provided systematically, was a constant and main source of her existence. Apart from her and her granddaughter, PERSON_3 had no close relatives, and therefore he directed all his income to supporting his granddaughter. The fact that PERSON_3 supported his granddaughter, according to the applicant, is confirmed by the agreement concluded between her and her father on the donation of the apartment belonging to him, the testimonies of witnesses and a certificate from the Onokiv Village Council.
On 28.08.2023, she, acting as the legal representative of PERSON_2, applied for the payment of a one-time cash benefit in connection with the death of her grandfather. In a response dated 11.09.2023, she was informed that persons who were dependent on a deceased serviceman are entitled to compensation only if they provide a document confirming the specified fact (a notarized transaction or a court decision obtained in a separate proceeding).
In view of the above, she asked the court to establish the fact that PERSON_2 was dependent on PERSON_3, who died while performing military service duties, in order to subsequently receive a one-time cash benefit in connection with the death of a serviceman, as provided for by the current legislation of Ukraine.
By the decision of the Uzhhorod City District Court of the Transcarpathian region dated November 28, 2023, the application was refused.
By the ruling of the Transcarpathian Court of Appeal dated March 6, 2024, the applicant’s appeal was partially satisfied. The ruling of the Uzhhorod City District Court of the Transcarpathian region dated November 28, 2023 was canceled, and the application was left without consideration.
The decision of the Court of Appeal is motivated by the fact that the purpose of the applicant’s application to establish the fact that PERSON_2 is dependent on the deceased PERSON_3 is to establish in court the circumstances to resolve the issue of exercising the right to receive a one-time cash benefit in connection with the death of a serviceman, provided for by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated 02/28/2022 No. 168. At the same time, the interested person denies the applicant’s right to receive the specified lump-sum cash assistance, which indicates the existence of a contradiction between the right to receive assistance and the applicant’s exercise of her subjective civil rights in the interests of the minor.
Taking into account the above circumstances, the appellate court concluded that the application for establishing the relevant legal fact is not subject to consideration in separate proceedings, since the establishment of this fact is related to the subsequent resolution of the dispute about the right to receive a lump-sum cash benefit, which is subject to consideration by the court in the course of claim proceedings.
By the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated March 5, 2025, case No. 308/17634/23 was transferred for consideration by the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
The decision is motivated by the fact that consideration of the case in separate proceedings under the rules of civil procedure is impossible if there is a dispute about the right, including the right to the appointment and receipt of a lump-sum cash benefit.
The panel of judges noted that if, after a dispute with a subject of public authority who refused to assign a lump-sum cash benefit (or a pension in case of loss of breadwinner), to make any claims under the rules of civil procedure (and even in separate proceedings) would mean breaking up the resolution of a single dispute on the right between courts of different jurisdictions; to recognize that in order to consider the case under the rules of administrative procedure, it is necessary to “create” preliminary facts in civil proceedings. Therefore, it is impossible to initiate legal proceedings under civil proceedings in order to assess the circumstances that are the subject of evidence in administrative proceedings, or in order to create, outside the latter, prerequisites for recognizing the evidence obtained in such proceedings as proper and admissible.
The resolution states that such an approach may have negative consequences for resolving disputes regarding the assignment and payment of a one-time cash benefit, since, contrary to the current legal regulation, it actually creates the prerequisites for the possibility of recognizing the right to the assignment and payment of such benefit in an undisputed manner. The relevant court decision, adopted in a separate proceeding, is mandatory (prejudicial) for both military management bodies and the administrative court in the case of appealing the decision of the relevant commission of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, adopted after the adoption of a court decision on establishing the relevant fact in a separate proceeding under the rules of civil procedure. In addition, establishing in a separate proceeding the fact of the granddaughter being dependent on the deceased serviceman will serve as a basis for the assignment of a pension in the event of the loss of the breadwinner, although the general court does not have the authority to resolve such issues.
The full text of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated 04/23/2025 in case No. 308/17634/23 can be found at the link: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126874172