Key Takeaways
- • Courts in Ukraine have repeatedly overturned Pension Fund of Ukraine (PFU) refusals to assign survivor pensions to families of servicemen, according to a review of four administrative cases published by the Judicial and Legal Newspaper (sud.ua).
- • In case No. 160/23379/26, the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court cancelled a PFU decision and ordered pensions for two minor children under Law No. 2262-XII from December 19, 2025, with amounts already paid taken into account.
- • In case No. 460/11115/25, the Rivne District Administrative Court ruled a refusal unlawful where a disabled adult daughter's certificate was issued after age 21, because other medical records confirmed disability from childhood; payment was ordered from March 5, 2025.
- • Courts denied claims where plaintiffs failed to prove their entitlement, as in case No. 140/5225/26 (Volyn District Administrative Court), where a daughter of a missing serviceman was refused a special-law pension for lack of documented evidence.
- • Courts assess all submitted evidence, not only the PFU's formal grounds, and outcomes range from full cancellation of refusals to reconsideration of documents.
Summary
The Judicial and Legal Newspaper (Судово-юридична газета, sud.ua) has analyzed recent court practice on disputes in which the Pension Fund of Ukraine declined to assign pensions to relatives of servicemen. According to the publication, the PFU may assign payments under the general pension law (Law No. 1058-IV) instead of the special law (Law No. 2262-XII), disregard a court ruling on paternity, or refuse on the basis of disability documentation. The article reviews four cases to clarify the PFU's arguments and the circumstances in which courts find its decisions unlawful.
In case No. 160/23379/26, the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court heard a claim by a mother of two minor children whose father died after receiving a disability pension linked to an illness acquired during military service. The children had been assigned a survivor pension under the general law, and the mother sought assignment under the special law. The PFU objected that the application did not specify the governing law. The court partially upheld the claim, cancelled the PFU decision and ordered pensions for both children under the special law from December 19, 2025, with payments already made taken into account. The remaining claims were denied.
In case No. 580/8668/26, the Cherkasy District Administrative Court reviewed a father's claim after a survivor pension was refused over discrepancies in the serviceman's birth certificate, which named another person as father. The Kalush City District Court had previously established the plaintiff's paternity, but the PFU insisted documents must be issued through an authorized structural unit. The Cherkasy court found the refusal unlawful, cancelled it and directed the PFU to reconsider the documents in light of the court's conclusions, without ordering immediate assignment.
In case No. 140/5225/26, the Volyn District Administrative Court denied a mother's claim for a 70% monetary-allowance-based pension under the special law for her minor daughter, whose father was reported missing in action during a combat mission. The child already received a general-law pension. The court found the plaintiff had not proven the circumstances supporting her claim, including submission of an additional certificate, and the publication stresses that the ruling does not mean children of missing servicemen lack such rights.
In case No. 460/11115/25, the Rivne District Administrative Court considered a guardian's claim for an adult daughter of a deceased serviceman with a Group II disability from childhood. The PFU refused because the medical-social expert commission certificate was issued when she turned 21. The court found other medical documents confirmed childhood onset and fully satisfied the claim, ordering the survivor pension from March 5, 2025.
The publication notes that under Law No. 2262-XII, Article 30, the right to a survivor pension extends to disabled children of deceased, dead or missing servicemen, and that for disabled children the pension is assigned regardless of breadwinner dependency. Entitlement, however, depends on confirming the relevant circumstances and submitting legally required documents. The article concludes that courts weigh all evidence, and that outcomes vary from cancellation and assignment to reconsideration or dismissal.
In case No. 160/23379/26, the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court heard a claim by a mother of two minor children whose father died after receiving a disability pension linked to an illness acquired during military service. The children had been assigned a survivor pension under the general law, and the mother sought assignment under the special law. The PFU objected that the application did not specify the governing law. The court partially upheld the claim, cancelled the PFU decision and ordered pensions for both children under the special law from December 19, 2025, with payments already made taken into account. The remaining claims were denied.
In case No. 580/8668/26, the Cherkasy District Administrative Court reviewed a father's claim after a survivor pension was refused over discrepancies in the serviceman's birth certificate, which named another person as father. The Kalush City District Court had previously established the plaintiff's paternity, but the PFU insisted documents must be issued through an authorized structural unit. The Cherkasy court found the refusal unlawful, cancelled it and directed the PFU to reconsider the documents in light of the court's conclusions, without ordering immediate assignment.
In case No. 140/5225/26, the Volyn District Administrative Court denied a mother's claim for a 70% monetary-allowance-based pension under the special law for her minor daughter, whose father was reported missing in action during a combat mission. The child already received a general-law pension. The court found the plaintiff had not proven the circumstances supporting her claim, including submission of an additional certificate, and the publication stresses that the ruling does not mean children of missing servicemen lack such rights.
In case No. 460/11115/25, the Rivne District Administrative Court considered a guardian's claim for an adult daughter of a deceased serviceman with a Group II disability from childhood. The PFU refused because the medical-social expert commission certificate was issued when she turned 21. The court found other medical documents confirmed childhood onset and fully satisfied the claim, ordering the survivor pension from March 5, 2025.
The publication notes that under Law No. 2262-XII, Article 30, the right to a survivor pension extends to disabled children of deceased, dead or missing servicemen, and that for disabled children the pension is assigned regardless of breadwinner dependency. Entitlement, however, depends on confirming the relevant circumstances and submitting legally required documents. The article concludes that courts weigh all evidence, and that outcomes vary from cancellation and assignment to reconsideration or dismissal.
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.