Key Takeaways
- • The Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court overturned lower-court rulings in case No. 420/32597/25 and held that the Pension Fund's refusal was lawful.
- • A retiree with over 38 years of civil service experience sought to return to his civil servant's pension and have it recalculated using three new salary certificates issued by the State Tax Service in Odesa region.
- • The Supreme Court held that resuming a previously assigned pension is distinct from determining a new amount, and that neither Law No. 3723-XII, Law No. 889-VIII, nor Cabinet Resolution No. 622 provides for reassigning a civil servant's pension with recalculation on new salary data.
- • Paragraph 13 of Section XV of Law No. 1058-IV permits resumption of the previous pension only in the amount established before the transfer.
- • The Supreme Court stated that financial disadvantage alone is not a lawful basis for refusal, but found the refusal lawful on other grounds in this case.
Summary
The Supreme Court's Cassation Administrative Court has ruled that a former civil servant cannot return to a previously assigned civil servant's pension and have it recalculated based on updated salary certificates. The decision, issued in case No. 420/32597/25, reverses the Odesa District Administrative Court and the appellate court, which had sided with the retiree and ordered the Pension Fund to assign the civil servant's pension.
The retiree had first received a pension under the Chornobyl disaster law, later switched to a civil servant's pension under Law No. 3723-XII, and subsequently moved to a general old-age pension under Law No. 1058-IV. Several years later he asked the Pension Fund to return to the civil servant's pension, submitting three salary certificates from the State Tax Service in Odesa region. The Main Department of the Pension Fund in Lviv region refused, citing the absence of a mechanism for recalculating such pensions and noting that the civil servant's pension (UAH 5,577.14) was less than half the general old-age pension (UAH 11,249.82).
The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff, although formally requesting a transfer, in substance sought recalculation of an already assigned pension. It noted that the statutory preservation of the right to a civil servant's pension under Article 37 of Law No. 3723-XII, as carried into Law No. 889-VIII, guarantees the right to assignment for qualifying persons but does not allow repeated reassignment with a new amount. Paragraph 13 of Section XV of Law No. 1058-IV allows resumption of the earlier pension only in the amount set before the transfer.
The court also addressed the Constitutional Court's decision No. 3-r/2022, which found the bar on recalculating such pensions unconstitutional and obliged the Verkhovna Rada to legislate, with invalidation deferred until three months after martial law ends. The Supreme Court held that this ruling does not itself establish a recalculation mechanism. It distinguished case No. 580/3805/22, where a person moved from a disability civil servant's pension to an old-age civil servant's pension, and noted that the choice of pension type belongs to the individual, though financial disadvantage alone does not justify refusal.
The retiree had first received a pension under the Chornobyl disaster law, later switched to a civil servant's pension under Law No. 3723-XII, and subsequently moved to a general old-age pension under Law No. 1058-IV. Several years later he asked the Pension Fund to return to the civil servant's pension, submitting three salary certificates from the State Tax Service in Odesa region. The Main Department of the Pension Fund in Lviv region refused, citing the absence of a mechanism for recalculating such pensions and noting that the civil servant's pension (UAH 5,577.14) was less than half the general old-age pension (UAH 11,249.82).
The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff, although formally requesting a transfer, in substance sought recalculation of an already assigned pension. It noted that the statutory preservation of the right to a civil servant's pension under Article 37 of Law No. 3723-XII, as carried into Law No. 889-VIII, guarantees the right to assignment for qualifying persons but does not allow repeated reassignment with a new amount. Paragraph 13 of Section XV of Law No. 1058-IV allows resumption of the earlier pension only in the amount set before the transfer.
The court also addressed the Constitutional Court's decision No. 3-r/2022, which found the bar on recalculating such pensions unconstitutional and obliged the Verkhovna Rada to legislate, with invalidation deferred until three months after martial law ends. The Supreme Court held that this ruling does not itself establish a recalculation mechanism. It distinguished case No. 580/3805/22, where a person moved from a disability civil servant's pension to an old-age civil servant's pension, and noted that the choice of pension type belongs to the individual, though financial disadvantage alone does not justify refusal.
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.