Key Takeaways
- • The Supreme Court of Ukraine's Cassation Administrative Court held that a military pension recalculation does not automatically strip indexation for all previous years; each increase must be assessed separately for when the right arose and whether a recalculation due to higher monetary allowance occurred in the relevant period.
- • Indexation for 2022 must be preserved, because the pensioner already held the increase as of March 1, 2022, and the February 1, 2023 recalculation could not terminate that right under Resolution No. 118.
- • Indexation for 2023 was denied under Cabinet Resolution No. 168, because the pension was recalculated from February 1, 2023 due to a rise in monetary allowance tied to the subsistence minimum, which excludes the 2023 increase.
- • The court found the Pension Fund's reversion to 2019 monetary allowance figures unlawful, ruling that a court decision must be genuinely and fully executed rather than nullified by later administrative action.
- • The ruling, in case No. 620/12763/24, partially granted the Pension Fund's cassation appeal, reversing lower-court decisions only on the 2023 indexation claim.
Summary
The Supreme Court of Ukraine ruled on a dispute over a military pension granted under Law No. 2262-XII, clarifying when the Pension Fund may remove previously established indexation after a pension is recalculated. The case, reported by Судово-юридична газета, involved a pensioner from Chernihiv region whose pension had been indexed for 2022 under Cabinet Resolution No. 118, which provided a coefficient of 1.14.
The pensioner obtained a new monetary allowance certificate as of January 1, 2023, reflecting an increase tied to the rise in the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons. The Chernihiv District Administrative Court ordered the Pension Fund to recalculate his pension from February 1, 2023. The Pension Fund complied in January 2024, but then calculated the pension without indexation for 2022 and 2023 and reverted to March 2019 monetary allowance figures in its March and June 2024 calculations. The Chernihiv District Administrative Court fully satisfied the pensioner's new claim, and the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal upheld it. The Pension Fund then filed a cassation appeal, relying on model case No. 400/6254/24, in which the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court considered that recalculation due to higher monetary allowance can lawfully bar indexation for 2022 and 2023.
The Supreme Court found the return to 2019 figures unlawful, stating that a court decision requires real and full execution and that a government authority cannot nullify its result without new legal grounds. On indexation, the Court held that the 2022 increase must be preserved, since the courts found no recalculation tied to higher monetary allowance during the period relevant to that indexation, and paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 118 expressly provides for considering established increases in later recalculations. For 2023, the Court denied the claim under Resolution No. 168, which provides a coefficient of 1.197 but excludes recalculations caused by increases in monetary allowance; the Court stressed that the operative date is February 1, 2023, not the January 2024 execution date.
The Court distinguished model case No. 400/6254/24, where recalculations occurred separately in February 2021, 2022 and 2023, and emphasized that indexation rights must be determined separately for each calendar period. In case No. 620/12763/24, the Court partially satisfied the Pension Fund's cassation appeal, overturning the lower courts only on the 2023 claim under Resolution No. 168 and dismissing it, while leaving the other rulings intact.
The pensioner obtained a new monetary allowance certificate as of January 1, 2023, reflecting an increase tied to the rise in the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons. The Chernihiv District Administrative Court ordered the Pension Fund to recalculate his pension from February 1, 2023. The Pension Fund complied in January 2024, but then calculated the pension without indexation for 2022 and 2023 and reverted to March 2019 monetary allowance figures in its March and June 2024 calculations. The Chernihiv District Administrative Court fully satisfied the pensioner's new claim, and the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal upheld it. The Pension Fund then filed a cassation appeal, relying on model case No. 400/6254/24, in which the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court considered that recalculation due to higher monetary allowance can lawfully bar indexation for 2022 and 2023.
The Supreme Court found the return to 2019 figures unlawful, stating that a court decision requires real and full execution and that a government authority cannot nullify its result without new legal grounds. On indexation, the Court held that the 2022 increase must be preserved, since the courts found no recalculation tied to higher monetary allowance during the period relevant to that indexation, and paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 118 expressly provides for considering established increases in later recalculations. For 2023, the Court denied the claim under Resolution No. 168, which provides a coefficient of 1.197 but excludes recalculations caused by increases in monetary allowance; the Court stressed that the operative date is February 1, 2023, not the January 2024 execution date.
The Court distinguished model case No. 400/6254/24, where recalculations occurred separately in February 2021, 2022 and 2023, and emphasized that indexation rights must be determined separately for each calendar period. In case No. 620/12763/24, the Court partially satisfied the Pension Fund's cassation appeal, overturning the lower courts only on the 2023 claim under Resolution No. 168 and dismissing it, while leaving the other rulings intact.
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.