The Pension Fund Lost the Basis for Delaying Payments: The Appellate Court Cancelled the Cabinet of Ministers' Restriction

The situation with the enforcement of court decisions in pension cases long resembled a legal dead end. As of 2026, the number of such decisions increased 26 times, and the state's total debt reached a critical level. The main obstacle to actual payments was the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated 14.07.2025 No. 821, which introduced a so-called "special procedure" for expenditures. This mechanism effectively allowed the Pension Fund of Ukraine to ignore the essence of court decisions on pension recalculations by paying debts proportionally to meager appropriations or postponing them indefinitely.

However, on March 4, 2026, the Kyiv District Administrative Court ruled in case No. 320/51895/25, recognizing paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of this Resolution as unlawful and invalid. Moreover, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the first instance court's decision and confirmed the illegality of Cabinet of Ministers' Resolution No. 821.

The legal dispute over the legitimacy of Cabinet of Ministers' Resolution No. 821 essentially became a confrontation between the principle of the rule of law and arguments about budgetary constraints under martial law conditions.

The plaintiff—a pensioner who challenged the government document—argued that the resolution effectively legalized non-enforcement of court decisions since it made payment of awarded funds dependent on the availability of budget financing. He also noted that courts had previously annulled a similar Cabinet resolution No. 649, which provided a comparable payment mechanism.

In contrast, the Pension Fund of Ukraine and the Ministry of Social Policy justified the necessity of the resolution by the conditions of martial law, prioritization of defense funding, and reduction of budget resources. Representatives of state bodies claimed that the document only defined the procedure for fund distribution and did not change citizens' rights to receive due payments.

After reviewing the case, the Kyiv District Administrative Court concluded that the government exceeded its authority. The court emphasized that according to Article 129-1 of the Constitution of Ukraine, court decisions are mandatory for execution, and the state is obliged to ensure their actual enforcement.

The appellate court focused on the payment mechanism provided by Resolution No. 821. According to the court, paying funds "proportionally to budget appropriations" effectively creates a new procedure for enforcing court decisions, which is not provided for by Ukrainian laws. The Cabinet of Ministers is not authorized to establish such rules by a subordinate act.

The courts also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which a lack of budget funds cannot justify the state's failure to enforce final court decisions.

Besides substantive violations, the courts identified procedural shortcomings during the adoption of the resolution. In particular, the document was adopted without proper public consultations and without mandatory agreement with trade union organizations, although its provisions directly concern the realization of citizens' constitutional rights.

Legal Consequences of Cancelling Resolution No. 821

The decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal means the effective elimination of the special mechanism for paying pension arrears based on court decisions, which allowed such payments in installments depending on the availability of budget funds.

One of the main consequences of the court's decision is the absence of legal grounds for the Pension Fund to further postpone payments due to so-called "recipient queues," special lists, or lack of appropriations under certain budget programs.

After Resolution No. 821 loses force, enforcement of court decisions must be carried out according to general legislation, including the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement Proceedings" and the Law of Ukraine "On State Guarantees for the Enforcement of Court Decisions."

A person's right to receive recalculated pension after a court decision becomes legally binding is an individual claim right against the state. This right cannot depend on budget planning or be determined by the government manually.

Effectively, the court's decision means that the Pension Fund is obliged to enforce court rulings in the amount determined by the court, not to make symbolic or phased payments. Furthermore, references to the need to improve information systems or other technical reasons can no longer be used to justify delays in enforcing court decisions.

Ensuring enforcement of final court decisions is a direct obligation of the state, which cannot be made dependent on the current state of the state budget or availability of financial resources.

What Pensioners Should Do Now

Although the court decision has come into force, the Pension Fund often delays payments out of inertia. Pensioners are advised to initiate compulsory enforcement. They should not wait for automatic payments. It is necessary to obtain an enforcement order from the court and apply to the State Enforcement Service to open proceedings.

If the Pension Fund does not enforce the decision within 2 months, the pensioner has the right to apply to the court with a request to change the method and procedure of enforcement (according to part 3 of Article 378 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine). The essence is to change the wording from "to oblige to recalculate" to "to recover a specific amount". Direct recovery significantly simplifies obtaining funds through Treasury bodies.

In case of pension accrual on paper without actual payment, it is worth filing lawsuits to not apply Resolution No. 821 (which has already been cancelled) and to recover arrears.

The cancellation of Resolution No. 821 is not just a victory in one court case but a restoration of the constitutional principle of the rule of law over government inaction. The court confirmed that the right to social protection and a fair trial cannot be illusory even during war.

The Pension Fund no longer has a legal safeguard to block payments. However, given the government's attempts to initiate new similar restrictions, pensioners need to act actively: open enforcement proceedings and demand a change in enforcement method to direct recovery of funds.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.