Key Takeaways
- • The Third Administrative Court of Appeal, in its May 5, 2026 ruling in case No. 160/4001/25, dismissed the Pension Fund's appeal and upheld the first-instance decision in favor of a claimant seeking a preferential pension under List No. 2.
- • The court held that a Ukrainian-versus-Russian surname spelling discrepancy between the passport and the employment record book, and a missing responsible-person signature on the title page, are not grounds to disregard work periods the book confirms.
- • The court ordered that 1995-1998 university study be counted toward insurance experience, based on a diploma and supplement, under Article 56 of the Law "On Pension Provision."
- • The court recognized 11 years and 8 months of work at a psychoneurological boarding school (2011-2022) as List No. 2 privileged experience, relying on personalized accounting form OK-5.
- • The court applied the pre-April 1, 2015 version of Article 13(b) of the Law "On Pension Provision," allowing women with the required privileged experience to claim an age pension from age 50, rather than the 55-year threshold under Law No. 1058-IV.
Summary
The Third Administrative Court of Appeal ruled on May 5, 2026, in case No. 160/4001/25 that the Pension Fund could not refuse a claimant's preferential pension on the grounds raised in its denial. The case was reported by the Labor and Employment Inspection of the Dnipro City Council and published by Sudovo-yurydychna hazeta (SUD.UA).
The claimant applied for a pension on preferential terms under List No. 2. The Pension Fund refused on several grounds: it excluded the period of study from September 1, 1995, to March 4, 1998, from insurance experience; it disregarded certain work periods because the surname was spelled in Ukrainian in the passport but in Russian in the employment record book; it cited the absence of the responsible person's signature on the book's title page; and it declined to count work at a psychoneurological boarding school from January 1, 2011, to August 31, 2022, as List No. 2 privileged experience.
On the study period, the court relied on Article 56 of the Law of Ukraine "On Pension Provision," which allows periods of study at higher and secondary specialized institutions, vocational schools, and training or retraining courses to be counted toward work experience. The claimant's study was documented by a diploma and its supplement, and the court held that the period must be included.
On the document issues, the court cited Article 62 of the same law, which designates the employment record book as the main document confirming work experience. It found that failure to meet formal registration requirements cannot by itself strip a person of social protection, so formal deficiencies do not justify disregarding the periods the book records.
On privileged experience, the court accepted the personalized accounting form OK-5 as evidence of special work conditions for the boarding-school period, and recognized 11 years and 8 months under List No. 2.
The court also addressed which legislative version governs. The Pension Fund relied on Article 114 of Law No. 1058-IV, which requires women to be 55 with at least 25 years of insurance experience, including 10 years in listed jobs. The court instead applied the pre-April 1, 2015 version of Article 13(b) of the Law "On Pension Provision," citing the Constitutional Court of Ukraine's January 23, 2020 decision No. 1-r/2020, which struck down amendments introduced by Law No. 213-VIII, and the Supreme Court Grand Chamber's February 19, 2020 position in case No. 520/15025/16-a that ambiguous law should be applied in the manner most favorable to the person. Under that version, women with the required privileged experience may claim an age pension from 50, provided total experience is at least 20 years, including at least 10 years in List No. 2 jobs.
The appeal was dismissed and the first-instance decision left in force. The Pension Fund must include the study period, consider the work periods confirmed by the employment record book, credit the 11 years and 8 months of privileged work, and reconsider the application in line with the court's legal position.
The claimant applied for a pension on preferential terms under List No. 2. The Pension Fund refused on several grounds: it excluded the period of study from September 1, 1995, to March 4, 1998, from insurance experience; it disregarded certain work periods because the surname was spelled in Ukrainian in the passport but in Russian in the employment record book; it cited the absence of the responsible person's signature on the book's title page; and it declined to count work at a psychoneurological boarding school from January 1, 2011, to August 31, 2022, as List No. 2 privileged experience.
On the study period, the court relied on Article 56 of the Law of Ukraine "On Pension Provision," which allows periods of study at higher and secondary specialized institutions, vocational schools, and training or retraining courses to be counted toward work experience. The claimant's study was documented by a diploma and its supplement, and the court held that the period must be included.
On the document issues, the court cited Article 62 of the same law, which designates the employment record book as the main document confirming work experience. It found that failure to meet formal registration requirements cannot by itself strip a person of social protection, so formal deficiencies do not justify disregarding the periods the book records.
On privileged experience, the court accepted the personalized accounting form OK-5 as evidence of special work conditions for the boarding-school period, and recognized 11 years and 8 months under List No. 2.
The court also addressed which legislative version governs. The Pension Fund relied on Article 114 of Law No. 1058-IV, which requires women to be 55 with at least 25 years of insurance experience, including 10 years in listed jobs. The court instead applied the pre-April 1, 2015 version of Article 13(b) of the Law "On Pension Provision," citing the Constitutional Court of Ukraine's January 23, 2020 decision No. 1-r/2020, which struck down amendments introduced by Law No. 213-VIII, and the Supreme Court Grand Chamber's February 19, 2020 position in case No. 520/15025/16-a that ambiguous law should be applied in the manner most favorable to the person. Under that version, women with the required privileged experience may claim an age pension from 50, provided total experience is at least 20 years, including at least 10 years in List No. 2 jobs.
The appeal was dismissed and the first-instance decision left in force. The Pension Fund must include the study period, consider the work periods confirmed by the employment record book, credit the 11 years and 8 months of privileged work, and reconsider the application in line with the court's legal position.
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.