Underpayment of IDP Assistance Is Illegal Even with Subsequent Compensation — Judicial Protection of Displaced Persons' Rights

The state support system for internally displaced persons (IDPs) has undergone significant changes in recent years. From 1 July 2025, the administration of payments was transferred to the Pension Fund of Ukraine, and the assignment of assistance is now combined with property verification of recipients.

The transfer of payment functions to the Pension Fund of Ukraine was accompanied not only by a change in administration but also by numerous technical and procedural difficulties. Therefore, the decision of the Odesa District Administrative Court dated 30 June 2026, in case No. 420/9401/26, was significant. It affirmed that housing assistance is not charity but a clearly regulated monthly payment that does not permit arbitrary reduction.

Underpayment as a violation

The plaintiff, who is raising a child and has been registered as an IDP since July 2022, appealed to the court regarding actions by the Main Department of the Pension Fund in Odesa region.

By a decision dated 12 November 2025, the plaintiff's family of three was allocated assistance totalling UAH 7,000 per month (UAH 3,000 for the child and UAH 2,000 for each adult). However, on 13 March 2026, only UAH 5,000 was credited to the account.

The Pension Fund did not recognise the claim, stating that in April 2026, a payment of UAH 9,000 was made, which included the standard UAH 7,000 for April and an additional UAH 2,000 to cover the March shortfall. According to the Fund, since the money was eventually paid, the plaintiff's rights were not violated.

However, the Pension Fund did not provide any justification for the legality of paying housing assistance to IDPs in an amount less than that established by current legislation, nor for the timeliness of such payment.

In considering the case, the court disagreed with the Pension Fund's reasoning. The court referred to Order No. 332, which stipulates that assistance is paid monthly in a fixed amount.

Thus, the payment of assistance is a monthly obligation of the state. The defendant provided no justification for the legality of paying a smaller amount in March, and as the court noted, the subsequent additional payment in April does not negate the illegality of the actions in March.

The Pension Fund's actions in crediting only UAH 5,000 in March were recognised as illegal. This decision confirms that IDPs have a right to financial predictability, and the state cannot unilaterally change the schedule or amount of payments without legal grounds.

Such cases are not isolated; issues arising around housing assistance for IDPs have become an area of active litigation. The transfer of functions from social protection authorities to the Pension Fund and the introduction of property verification have indeed created new challenges.

Procedural obligation to submit an application: Case No. 380/20693/24

Following amendments to Order No. 332 by Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 94, the mechanism for continuing assistance payments has significantly changed since March 2024.

The plaintiff challenged the termination of automatic assistance accrual, but the court concluded that the social protection authority's actions were lawful.

The court noted that automatic continuation of payments is provided only for certain categories of persons, namely pensioners and persons with disabilities of groups I and II. Other assistance recipients are required to submit a new application in the prescribed form.

Failure to submit such an application is an independent and sufficient legal basis for not assigning assistance for the next period, even if the person generally meets other criteria for receiving payments.

Protection of insurance payments for IDPs: Cases No. 200/31/26 and No. 420/24281/25

Judicial practice regarding insurance payments demonstrates a consistent approach to protecting the rights of internally displaced persons.

In several cases, appellate courts overturned decisions to terminate insurance payments assigned under the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Social Insurance" No. 1105-XIV.

The main argument of the courts was that Law No. 1105-XIV contains an exhaustive list of grounds for terminating insurance payments. Circumstances such as "unknown place of residence," failure to verify the actual place of residence, or absence of the person at the declared address are not provided for by law.

Courts emphasised that provisions of subordinate normative acts, including Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolutions No. 365 and No. 637, cannot establish additional grounds for terminating payments or narrow the scope of social rights guaranteed by law.

The established practice confirms the priority of the law over subordinate acts and strengthens judicial protection of the rights of internally displaced persons in the field of social insurance.

Inaction of the Pension Fund regarding IDP assistance: Case No. 440/296/26

An IDP applied to the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine with applications for housing assistance for internally displaced persons and state social assistance for low-income families. Despite submitted documents (including confirmation of unified social contribution payment), the social protection authority did not consider the applications in the prescribed manner. The plaintiff was left without payments, which created serious difficulties for the family with young children.

The court of first instance recognised the inaction of the Pension Fund's Main Department regarding the failure to consider both applications as illegal and obliged the authority to reconsider the appeals, taking into account the court's conclusions. The rest of the claims (direct assignment and payment of assistance) were denied.

The Second Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the Pension Fund's appeal and upheld the first instance court's decision.

The court emphasised that the fact of paying the unified social contribution, even if not fully for certain months, and registration at the employment centre as unemployed are not grounds for automatic denial of assistance. The Pension Fund did not provide a properly formalised refusal decision and did not fully consider the application.

The ruling confirms the obligation of Pension Fund bodies to timely and properly consider appeals from IDPs and low-income families. Delays in considering applications constitute illegal inaction.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.