The Supreme Court recognized the salary base of 1762 UAH as lawful, but after a successful military pension recalculation, one can lose the supplement and indexation

Until recently, judicial practice in cases involving military pensioners was more or less predictably victorious for citizens. However, July 2026 significantly changed the landscape. The Supreme Court issued two interrelated decisions that effectively close the possibilities for "automatic" payment increases. The decisions not only legitimized the understated base for calculating official salaries and salaries for military (special) ranks at the level of 1762 UAH, i.e., at the subsistence minimum level for 2018, but also created a mechanism of "punishment" for a successful recalculation — loss of supplements and indexation.

The main conflict arose precisely around the calculated amount of salaries and the advisability of preserving additional payments after recalculation. These decisions appear as an attempt by the state to balance the Pension Fund budget at the expense of the social standards of the military.

Case No. 320/29450/24: legitimization of the 1762 UAH salary

On July 16, 2026, the Supreme Court panel adopted a ruling recognizing Clause 2 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 481 as lawful.

The plaintiff demanded the cancellation of the fixed amount of 1762 UAH as the salary base, insisting that it should equal the current subsistence minimum.

The court emphasized that Article 9 of Law No. 2011-XII delegates the Government the authority to establish the amounts of monetary provision. Thus, the Cabinet of Ministers has the right to "freeze" the calculation amount at the 2018 level.

This decision means that automatic salary increases due to the rise in the subsistence minimum will not occur. State bodies have received a legal basis to refuse issuing updated certificates.

More detailed conclusions of the Panel of Judges of the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court can be read in the article The base for calculating military payments will remain at the 2018 level — 1762 UAH: The Supreme Court recognized Resolution 481 as lawful.

Case No. 400/8494/25 and the "cancellation of bonuses"

On July 20, 2026, the Supreme Court considered another case concerning the consequences of an already conducted recalculation.

The Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Mykolaiv District Administrative Court and the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal, which denied the plaintiff’s claim to oblige the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Mykolaiv region to recalculate the pension considering the monthly supplement of 2000 UAH under Cabinet Resolution No. 713 and indexation under Resolution No. 118.

The former serviceman, a pensioner, challenged the Pension Fund’s cessation of the monthly supplement of 2000 UAH and indexation after the pension recalculation carried out following the court decision in case No. 400/4654/25. According to the plaintiff, since the recalculation was made solely to implement the court decision based on the updated certificate of monetary provision and not due to changes in the legislatively defined components of pension provision, there were no grounds to cancel these payments.

In other words, the pensioner achieved a pension recalculation from February 1, 2022, based on the updated certificate of monetary provision. As a result, his main pension increased by more than 2000 UAH, after which the Pension Fund stopped paying the monthly supplement.

The Supreme Court supported the Pension Fund in stopping the monthly supplement of 2000 UAH under Resolution No. 713 and the indexation under Resolution No. 118.

The Supreme Court upheld the conclusions of the lower courts, stating that pension recalculation due to the increase in the subsistence minimum is grounds for stopping the supplement and indexation. The increase in the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, which affects the amount of monetary provision, leads to pension recalculation. In such a case, the 2000 UAH supplement and indexation are terminated. This corresponds to the mechanism enshrined in the third paragraph of Clause 2 of Cabinet Resolution No. 168.

Thus, the 2000 UAH supplement was a temporary measure until recalculation. Since the pension was recalculated due to an increase in monetary provision, even by court decision, the grounds for the supplement and indexation disappear.

At the same time, in the same decision, the Supreme Court expressed a different opinion regarding the possibility of applying an 8-year-old base amount for salary calculation. The court confirmed that determining the size of official salaries and salaries for ranks through the fixed amount of 1762 UAH, as established by Resolution No. 481, contradicts laws of higher legal force, namely the Law on the State Budget. Therefore, the original version of Resolution No. 704 applies — taking into account the current subsistence minimum as of January 1 of the calendar year.

Legal contradiction

An important guideline remains in judicial practice — the ruling of the Judicial Panel for Social Rights Protection Cases of the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court dated February 17, 2026, in case No. 520/5814/24.

The court concluded that Clause 2 of Cabinet Resolution No. 481, which provides for applying the fixed figure of 1762 UAH, does not comply with the provisions of the State Budget Law, which has higher legal force.

"The court is not entitled, when resolving a dispute, to apply a defective normative legal act regardless of whether it was in force at the time of the disputed relations," the decision states. The court concluded that Clause 4 of Cabinet Resolution No. 704 is to be applied only to the extent that it does not contradict the State Budget Law of Ukraine for the respective year. Therefore, the sizes of official salaries and salaries for military (special) ranks must be determined based on the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons established by law as of January 1 of the respective year, not by the fixed amount provided by a subordinate act.

Moreover, the court concluded that Clause 4 of Resolution No. 704 as amended by Clause 2 of Resolution No. 481 replaces such a state social standard as the subsistence minimum with a fixed amount — 1762.00 UAH, the application of which when determining official salaries and salaries for military (special) ranks of servicemen not only significantly reduces their salary sizes but also nullifies the purpose of adopting Resolution No. 704 as such.

The court noted that when resolving a dispute, a subordinate normative act cannot be applied if its provisions contradict the law. In such a case, the norms of the law have priority, particularly regarding the determination of the subsistence minimum as the basic state social standard.

Thus, the Judicial Panel, confirmed also in ruling No. 400/8494/25, stated that Clause 4 of Resolution No. 704 must be applied in its original version. That is, the current subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons as of January 1 of the calendar year should be used to determine salaries.

Why did such a difference arise?

The July 20 decision relies on the conclusions of the Supreme Court Panel from February 17, 2026, in case No. 520/5814/24, which determined that State Budget laws have priority over defective Cabinet resolutions.

Despite the fact that in the July 16 ruling the Supreme Court recognized Cabinet Resolution No. 481 as applicable in relevant legal relations, the subsequent July 20 ruling, relying on the legal position of the Judicial Panel from February 17, 2026, confirms a different principle: the court is not entitled to apply a subordinate normative act if it contradicts the law.

This leaves pensioners a procedural opportunity to substantiate claims for pension recalculation based on the subsistence minimum established by law, not on the fixed calculation amount set by the Government resolution. However, one should be prepared for the Pension Fund to automatically remove the 2000 UAH supplement and 2022 indexation if the main pension increases.

At the same time, further development of judicial practice will depend on which of the Supreme Court’s approaches becomes established practice, particularly considering the decisions made in July 2026.

The further course of justice will depend on whether the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court confirms the priority of the law over the Government’s discretion.

If the July 16 approach prevails, recalculations will become exceptional, and payments to the military will remain "frozen."

If the July 20 approach wins, namely the priority of the law over government resolutions, then the right to recalculate based on the new subsistence minimum will remain inviolable, although pensioners will have to sacrifice supplements and indexation.

For already opened cases, the date of application will be crucial, since Resolution No. 481 was invalid from June 18, 2025, to July 16, 2026.

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