Resolution 821 is not yet in effect: The Supreme Court opened cassation but preserved pensioners' right to payments

The Supreme Court opened cassation proceedings regarding the legality of Cabinet Resolution 821 but did not support the Government’s request to suspend the execution of decisions of lower courts. While the cassation review is ongoing, these decisions remain in force, and pensioners can continue to demand the enforcement of court rulings on the payment of funds owed to them.

The pension case that could change the rules of the game for thousands of pensioners has reached the Supreme Court. By its ruling on July 21, the Supreme Court opened cassation proceedings concerning the legality of Cabinet Resolution No. 821, which regulated the procedure for paying debts based on court decisions. Despite the Government’s attempt to suspend the execution of lower court decisions, the Supreme Court denied such a request. This means pensioners still retain the possibility to seek payment of the funds owed to them.

For many Ukrainian pensioners, a court decision today is not the end but only the beginning of the struggle to actually receive the funds due. The case concerning Resolution No. 821 raises a much broader issue than just resolving one dispute: whether the state can postpone the execution of court decisions through subordinate acts, or whether the principle of their binding nature remains an unconditional guarantee of the rule of law.

"No funds – no obligation to execute even mandatory court decisions on pension recalculation." It seems this logic has been the basis for years of relations with citizens who won lawsuits against the state. Instead of executing court decisions, the government created a whole system of subordinate barriers that effectively legalized payment delays and made the binding nature of court acts directly dependent on the availability of budget funds.

The main instrument of this policy was Cabinet Resolution No. 821 dated July 14, 2025, which allowed the Pension Fund to pay off arrears in installments and for an indefinite period, based solely on available budget appropriations. However, in July 2026, this mechanism underwent its first test in the highest judicial instance.

Why did the Government go to cassation?

In October 2025, a citizen filed a lawsuit demanding to declare Resolution No. 821 unlawful and invalid. The Kyiv District Administrative Court and the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal in case No. 320/51895/25 supported the plaintiff’s position, recognizing points 1, 2, and 3 of this Resolution as unlawful and invalid. The courts emphasized that execution of a court decision cannot be merely a formal accrual of amounts without their actual payment.

Disagreeing with this, the Cabinet of Ministers filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. The Government tries to prove it has the authority to independently determine the payment procedure within the framework of budget legislation, especially under martial law conditions. Additionally, along with the cassation appeal, the Cabinet filed a motion to suspend the execution of the Kyiv District Administrative Court decision dated March 4, 2026, and the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal ruling dated June 8, 2026, in case No. 320/51895/25. That is, the government insisted on temporarily suspending the execution of the decision that opens the way to pay multi-billion arrears to pensioners.

Government’s arguments: 97 billion in debts and martial law

Justifying the cassation appeal, the Cabinet of Ministers asks the Supreme Court to cancel the decisions of lower courts and presents several key arguments.

First, the Government warns that if Resolution No. 821 is canceled, the Pension Fund will effectively be left without a valid mechanism to finance payments of arrears based on court decisions.

Another argument is the scale of the problem. According to the Cabinet of Ministers, the amount of unfulfilled court decisions regarding pension payments already exceeds UAH 97 billion. According to the Pension Fund, it is approximately UAH 96.7 billion. The Government believes that repaying such debt in a short time under current budget capabilities is impossible.

Separately, the Cabinet refers to martial law conditions. The Pension Fund and the Ministry of Social Policy emphasize that under limited financial resources, the state’s priority remains funding the security and defense sector.

Moreover, the Government claims that the courts of first and appellate instances incorrectly applied provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2025" and, in its opinion, unjustifiably narrowed the Cabinet of Ministers' powers regarding the determination of the procedure for using budget funds.

Law above resolution: why the plaintiff considers the Government’s position unfounded

In its objections to the Supreme Court, the plaintiff insists that the right to a pension confirmed by a court decision cannot be limited by a subordinate normative act.

The main argument is that the state’s obligation to pay the pension in the amount determined by the court arises directly from the law and the court decision, not from a government resolution. According to the plaintiff, Cabinet Resolution No. 821 did not create new legal relations but only postponed the execution of an already existing state obligation.

The plaintiff also disputes claims about possible additional budget losses. Execution of court decisions, as stated in the objections, is not new state expenditures but the payment of funds already owed to pensioners based on court decisions.

Attention is also drawn to the financial condition of the Pension Fund. According to the plaintiff, at the beginning of 2025, the Fund’s budget was in surplus, which calls into question the Cabinet of Ministers' arguments about the lack of financial capacity to execute court decisions.

Furthermore, the plaintiff opposes the Government’s motion to suspend the execution of court decisions of first and appellate instances. In his view, such a motion is aimed not at protecting state interests but at preserving the effect of a normative act already recognized by courts as unlawful and invalid.

Supreme Court’s logic: why proceedings were opened but suspension denied?

The Supreme Court concluded that currently there is no Supreme Court ruling on the application of the State Budget Law for 2025 and the Government’s competence in the context of Resolution No. 821. This issue requires thorough verification and study of case materials, which is impossible without opening cassation proceedings.

The suspension of previously issued decisions regarding pension recalculation and payment was denied. For suspension of court decisions, which is allowed only as an exception, there must be compelling reasons.

According to the Constitution, the state is obliged to ensure the execution of court decisions.

The Government, in turn, did not provide sufficient justification or evidence that canceling the resolution would cause irreversible consequences or make protecting the Government’s rights impossible.

"The hopes and assumptions of the appellant regarding certain results of the cassation review cannot be grounds for suspending the execution of a court decision that has entered into legal force," the Supreme Court stated.

Significance of the Supreme Court decision for the legal system

The Supreme Court’s refusal to suspend the execution of appellate decisions means that Resolution No. 821 remains invalid throughout the cassation review period.

Thus, despite the cassation review, pensioners are not deprived of procedural mechanisms to enforce court decisions. In particular, they can:

• apply to the court with a motion to change the method or procedure of executing the decision under Article 378 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine if the Pension Fund cites inability to execute it;
• initiate judicial control over the execution of the decision, obliging the Pension Fund to report to the court on measures taken;
• obtain an enforcement order and open enforcement proceedings with the state enforcement service for compulsory execution of the decision.

Read more about procedural mechanisms in the article by "Judicial-Legal Newspaper" Pension recalculation by court decision: why real payments have to be fought for years.

Currently, the Supreme Court ruling of July 21, 2026, is an intermediate but important stage in the fight for social justice. The court clearly indicated: the state’s budget difficulties cannot be an automatic excuse for ignoring court decisions.

The Cabinet of Ministers' attempt to preserve the payment mechanism introduced by Resolution No. 821 has so far suffered a procedural defeat. If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the decision declaring it invalid, this could become one of the most important precedents in social protection. The consequence of such a decision may be a change in approaches to enforcing court decisions on pension payments and opening the possibility for repaying arrears, which, according to official data, approaches UAH 97 billion.

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