The Pension Fund Does Not Pay After Court Decision: How to Receive Pension Payments Without Excuses About Lack of Appropriations

Winning a court case against the Pension Fund today is only 50% of success. The other 50% is an exhausting struggle for real money that the Pension Fund of Ukraine (PFU) refuses to pay for years, hiding behind Resolution No. 821 and empty accounts. Administrative court practice shows a change in the approach to controlling the enforcement of Pension Fund decisions. Courts increasingly recognize that recalculating a pension alone does not mean the decision has been executed and refuse to accept formal PFU reports, impose personal fines on the heads of Fund bodies, and change the enforcement method to recover specific amounts. These procedural mechanisms are currently the most effective for pensioners who want not only to win in court but also to actually receive the awarded funds.

Currently, the Pension Fund of Ukraine has accumulated over 97 billion hryvnias in debt from court decisions, and its main strategy remains unchanged — to carry out a formal recalculation in the database and wait for budget allocations for years.

However, as previously reported by the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper," the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal in case No. 320/51895/25 recognized points 1, 2, and 3 of the notorious Resolution No. 821 as unlawful and invalid. The Supreme Court by ruling on July 21 opened cassation proceedings regarding the legality of this Resolution.

The Cabinet of Ministers tries to preserve the payment mechanism introduced by Resolution No. 821, i.e., depending on the availability of appropriations. However, so far the Supreme Court has refused the Government’s request to suspend the effect of previous court decisions. This means that during the cassation review, Resolution No. 821 remains invalid, and pensioners have the full right to demand payments in the general procedure without waiting for mythical queues.

Judicial Control

Judicial control is a form of preventive influence on the debtor. According to Article 382 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (CAPU), the court may oblige the PFU to submit a report on the enforcement of the decision.

Case No. 420/24997/23 filed by pensioners against the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine is a demonstrative example of a prolonged struggle for real enforcement of a court decision amid systemic resistance from pension authorities.

The plaintiff applied to the court demanding to recognize the inaction of the PFU Main Department regarding the calculation and payment of his pension since February 1, 1998, taking into account indexation and numerous Cabinet of Ministers resolutions. The court obliged the Fund to carry out a full recalculation and payment of the pension, including indexation and compensation for lost income.

Within judicial control, the PFU Main Department submitted a report acknowledging the debt to the pensioner, with the total amount of debt being 641,774.75 UAH.

Despite the calculation, actual payments were partial: by the end of 2025, only 19,445.52 UAH was paid, and from January to April 2026 — 2,361 UAH monthly. The rest of the debt was entered into an internal register by the PFU, citing lack of budget appropriations and provisions of Cabinet Resolution No. 821.

The Odessa District Administrative Court initially accepted the Fund’s report, considering the actions of the PFU Main Department head sufficient. However, the appellate court overturned this conclusion, formulating different legal positions.

Once again, the court decision emphasized that mere recalculation is not execution. Execution is considered complete only after the actual payment of the accrued funds to the claimant.

Prolonged lack of proper budget financing cannot serve as a legal basis to exempt the debtor from the obligation to enforce a legally binding decision.

The right to a court would be illusory if the internal legal system allowed non-enforcement of final decisions to the detriment of one party (reference to ECHR practice "Hornsby v. Greece").

Although the appellate court rejected the PFU report due to non-payment, it decided not to impose a fine on the head of the PFU Main Department. The court found that the head took "actions within his power" — in particular, sent inquiries to the PFU central office regarding fund allocation, which under part 5 of Article 382-3 CAPU may be grounds for exemption from a fine.

Penalty Sanctions Against PFU Leadership

Article 382-3 CAPU provides for imposing a fine on the head of the body from 20 to 40 subsistence minimums (from 60,560 UAH) for non-enforcement of a decision or refusal to accept a report.

Administrative case No. 639/3600/17 is another example of judicial control and imposition of personal fines on state officials for prolonged non-enforcement of pension recalculation decisions.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the PFU, Tax Service, and State Labor Service, demanding to recognize the PFU’s refusal to recalculate the pension based on a salary certificate as unlawful.

The district court partially satisfied the claim, recognizing the PFU refusal as illegal and obliging the body to recalculate; the appellate court overturned the first instance decision and issued a new one specifying the recalculation period.

Due to PFU ignoring court decisions, the plaintiff initiated judicial control. The court set a 30-day deadline for submitting an enforcement report.

Later, the first instance court mistakenly accepted and approved reports from the Tax Service and PFU despite the plaintiff’s objections. The Administrative Court of Appeal canceled the order accepting the reports, recognizing them as not confirming real enforcement, and resorted to extreme measures.

The head of the Tax Service Main Department was fined 60,560 UAH, and the head of the PFU Main Department was also fined 60,560 UAH.

According to the law, 50% of each fine (30,280 UAH) is collected directly in favor of the plaintiff, and the other 50% goes to the State Budget.

Since the fines were not paid, the plaintiff filed a new application to establish control over the payment of these fines.

Case No. 639/3600/17 confirms that appellate courts have the authority not only to reject reports from authorities but also to impose significant personal financial sanctions if it is proven that decisions were "formally" executed without actual payment or issuance of necessary documents.

Change of Enforcement Method

When the PFU claims lack of funds for years, an effective mechanism is to change the enforcement method (Article 378 CAPU).

Case of the Second Administrative Court of Appeal in case No. 480/2596/25 demonstrates the transition from passive waiting for payments to an active mechanism of fund recovery by changing the enforcement method.

The plaintiff applied to the court due to the refusal of the PFU Main Department in Sumy region to properly index the pension. The court recognized the PFU inaction as unlawful and obliged to recalculate and pay the pension from 10/06/2024 (applying coefficient 1.0796) and from 03/01/2025 (applying coefficients 1.0796 and 1.115). The decision became final on 09/09/2025 after appeal review.

Despite the court establishing judicial control on 10/10/2025, the PFU only partially executed the decision. The Fund recalculated the debt, which amounted to 5,965.22 UAH for the period from 10/06/2024 to 11/30/2025.

Citing Cabinet Resolution No. 821, the PFU paid only 2,186.87 UAH, stating the rest would be paid subject to budget allocations.

An important stage of this case was the court ruling that changed the enforcement method of the court decision. This procedural decision significantly affected the further course of enforcement proceedings and effectively changed the legal status of the debt. The court satisfied the executive service’s request and changed the method and procedure of enforcement: instead of "obligation to recalculate and pay," the court ordered to "recover" from the PFU Main Department in favor of the plaintiff the amount of 3,778.35 UAH.

Changing the method to recovery means the case no longer anticipates voluntary execution by the Fund and moves to the procedure of indisputable write-off of funds by the Treasury authorities.

To actually receive money, a pensioner should demand not just reports on recalculation but specifically a change in the enforcement method to recover a specific amount, which allows Treasury bodies to write off funds from PFU accounts without its consent.

Why Changing the Enforcement Method Is So Important

While the court only obliges the Pension Fund to recalculate and pay, enforcement depends on the debtor’s actions. After changing the enforcement method, the court determines the specific amount to be recovered. This opens the possibility of indisputable write-off of funds by the State Treasury Service.

Justification by Excuses of Lack of Appropriations

Courts refer to the ECHR practice in the case "Hornsby v. Greece", noting that the right to a court would be illusory if the internal system allowed ignoring final decisions.

Although the Budget Code prohibits incurring obligations without appropriations, the Constitution (Article 129-1) and CAPU (Article 370) place the mandatory nature of court decisions above departmental allocations.

In case No. 420/24997/23, the court emphasized that prolonged lack of funding cannot be grounds for exemption from the obligation to enforce.

Conclusion

The situation with PFU payments in 2026 is at a critical turning point. The state currently cannot use Resolution No. 821 as a universal defense.

Judicial control is not just a formality but the only effective mechanism to realize the right to social protection when a state body chooses the path of sabotage. Lack of appropriations is the state’s problem, not the citizen who defended their right in court.

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.