Key Takeaways
- • The Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv established, in a separate proceeding, the fact of a man's conscript military service in the Armed Forces of the USSR from June 28, 1984, to June 4, 1987, after the Pension Fund of Ukraine declined to count that period toward his work experience.
- • The Pension Fund's Main Department in Kharkiv region cited the absence of supporting documents, because the applicant's military ID was destroyed during shelling of Lysychansk in June 2022.
- • The court relied on a 2025 archival certificate from the Kharkiv National Automobile and Road University, a summons, black-and-white service photos, and a notarized affidavit from a former fellow serviceman dated August 25, 2026.
- • Extrajudicial efforts failed: the Sectoral State Archive of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine said the unit documents may be held in the Central Archive of the Russian Federation's Ministry of Defense, and the Ombudsman said obtaining such records falls outside its mechanism with Russia.
- • The ruling illustrates how courts can accept alternative evidence for pension-related service periods when original documents are lost to hostilities and archives are inaccessible.
Summary
The Kyiv District Court of Kharkiv considered an application from a man seeking to establish, in separate proceedings, the fact of his conscript military service in the Armed Forces of the USSR from June 28, 1984, to June 4, 1987. The Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Kharkiv region, named as an interested party, did not take the period into account when assigning his age pension, which the applicant said began on May 11, 2026, because no documents confirmed the service. In a letter dated June 11, 2026, the department stated that no documents confirming military service had been submitted. The department did not send a representative to the hearing, and the court found it had been duly notified.
The applicant said he was conscripted on June 28, 1984, while studying at what is now the Kharkiv National Automobile and Road University, and that he served in two military units, including on a Soviet Navy ship stationed in Novoozerne, Crimea. He was discharged on June 4, 1987, with the rank of First-Class Petty Officer under USSR Ministry of Defense order No. 93 of March 25, 1987. His military ID was lost when a college building in Lysychansk, where he had worked as a lecturer and had deposited his registration documents for verification in February 2022, was damaged by shelling and fire on June 6, 2022, destroying its contents. He became an internally displaced person and was registered for military service at his new residence until he was removed on May 10, 2026, on reaching the age limit for reserve service.
The court reviewed an archival certificate from the university dated October 21, 2025, which confirmed full-time study at the mechanical faculty during 1983–1991, an academic leave order dated June 28, 1984, for conscription, and a resumption order dated August 26, 1987. A certified copy of the summons requiring him to report on June 28, 1984, black-and-white photos showing him in Soviet Navy uniform, and a notarized affidavit dated August 25, 2026, from a former fellow serviceman who said he served on the same ship from May 15, 1984, to June 4, 1987, were also submitted. The applicant's representative, lawyer Oleksandr Koval, had sent extrajudicial requests to territorial recruitment centers, the Sectoral State Archive of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, and the Commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada for Human Rights. Responses stated that the information could not be verified, that archival records were held in successor-state military archives, and that the Commissioner's humanitarian mechanism with the Russian side did not cover such documents.
Finding that the applicant had taken reasonable steps to obtain documentary confirmation without success, and weighing the evidence together, the court concluded there were grounds to establish the fact of conscript service in the specified units for the stated period. The court cited the Civil Procedure Code provisions governing separate proceedings and Article 315, which allows courts to establish facts on which personal or property rights depend when no other procedure is provided by law.
The applicant said he was conscripted on June 28, 1984, while studying at what is now the Kharkiv National Automobile and Road University, and that he served in two military units, including on a Soviet Navy ship stationed in Novoozerne, Crimea. He was discharged on June 4, 1987, with the rank of First-Class Petty Officer under USSR Ministry of Defense order No. 93 of March 25, 1987. His military ID was lost when a college building in Lysychansk, where he had worked as a lecturer and had deposited his registration documents for verification in February 2022, was damaged by shelling and fire on June 6, 2022, destroying its contents. He became an internally displaced person and was registered for military service at his new residence until he was removed on May 10, 2026, on reaching the age limit for reserve service.
The court reviewed an archival certificate from the university dated October 21, 2025, which confirmed full-time study at the mechanical faculty during 1983–1991, an academic leave order dated June 28, 1984, for conscription, and a resumption order dated August 26, 1987. A certified copy of the summons requiring him to report on June 28, 1984, black-and-white photos showing him in Soviet Navy uniform, and a notarized affidavit dated August 25, 2026, from a former fellow serviceman who said he served on the same ship from May 15, 1984, to June 4, 1987, were also submitted. The applicant's representative, lawyer Oleksandr Koval, had sent extrajudicial requests to territorial recruitment centers, the Sectoral State Archive of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, and the Commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada for Human Rights. Responses stated that the information could not be verified, that archival records were held in successor-state military archives, and that the Commissioner's humanitarian mechanism with the Russian side did not cover such documents.
Finding that the applicant had taken reasonable steps to obtain documentary confirmation without success, and weighing the evidence together, the court concluded there were grounds to establish the fact of conscript service in the specified units for the stated period. The court cited the Civil Procedure Code provisions governing separate proceedings and Article 315, which allows courts to establish facts on which personal or property rights depend when no other procedure is provided by law.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.