The Pension Fund cut a civil servant's pension from 16 thousand to 7 thousand UAH due to a new Cabinet resolution — the Supreme Court recognized this as illegal

The Supreme Court, composed of the panel of judges of the Administrative Cassation Court, considered the case regarding the legality of reducing the pension amount of a civil servant after the entry into force of the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 823 and the subsequent transfer of the person to an old-age pension under the Law "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance."

The court examined whether the Pension Fund had the right to review an already assigned civil servant's pension due to changes in regulatory regulation and to refuse to restore its payment at the previously determined amount.

Essence of the case

The plaintiff worked for a long time in civil service positions and was dismissed at the end of 2019 due to reorganization. In 2016, she was assigned Group II disability and was granted a disability pension according to the Law "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance."

After reaching retirement age, she applied to the Pension Fund authority with a request to assign a civil servant's pension according to Article 37 of the Law "On Civil Service." The application was accompanied by certificates of salary components issued by the social protection department, which complied with the forms approved by the Pension Fund Board Resolution dated January 17, 2017, No. 1-3.

Based on the submitted documents, from February 1, 2024, the Pension Fund assigned her a civil servant's pension amounting to 60% of the salary specified in the certificates. The pension amount was 16,402.26 UAH.

Subsequently, the Main Department of the Pension Fund in Cherkasy region informed the plaintiff that after the Cabinet of Ministers amended the Procedure for appointing pensions to certain categories of persons by Resolution No. 823 dated July 12, 2024, the amount of her civil servant's pension was adjusted to comply with new legislative requirements. As a result, the pension amount was reduced to 7,670 UAH. Since this amount was less than the pension under Law No. 1058-IV, from December 1, 2024, the person was transferred to an old-age pension under the compulsory pension insurance system.

In February 2025, the plaintiff applied to the Pension Fund with a request to calculate and pay her the civil servant's pension at the previously determined amount. However, under the extraterritoriality procedure, the Main Department of the Pension Fund in Donetsk region refused the request, stating that there were no grounds to consider the submitted certificates for pension recalculation.

Disagreeing with this refusal, the plaintiff appealed to the administrative court.

Decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances

The Cherkasy District Administrative Court denied the claim. The court reasoned that after the entry into force of the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 823, the procedure for determining salary for assigning pensions to civil servants changed.

The court of first instance concluded that the salary component certificates, on the basis of which the pension was assigned to the plaintiff, did not meet the new requirements of paragraph 4-2 of Procedure No. 622 as amended by Resolution No. 823. According to the court, in such legal relations, the certificates should have contained salary indicators defined no later than December 31, 2023.

The Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal agreed with these conclusions and left the decision unchanged.

Legal conclusions of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court first noted that the defendants did not dispute the plaintiff's necessary civil service experience, attainment of the appropriate age, and right to a civil servant's pension under Article 37 of the Law "On Civil Service" considering the provisions of Law No. 889-VIII.

The court emphasized that the plaintiff's right to such a pension had already been realized since February 1, 2024, when she was assigned a civil servant's pension amounting to 60% of the salary specified in the submitted certificates.

The panel of judges stressed that the dispute concerned not the initial acquisition of the pension right but the legality of the Pension Fund's subsequent actions to reduce the already assigned pension and transfer the person to another type of pension provision.

The Supreme Court established that when applying for the pension assignment, the plaintiff submitted certificates that fully complied with the form and content defined by the Pension Fund Board Resolution No. 1-3. These documents were accepted and considered by the Pension Fund authority when assigning the pension.

The court noted that after the amendments introduced by Cabinet Resolution No. 823 to Procedure No. 622, it was explicitly provided that salary certificates for civil servants in new forms are issued exclusively for assigning pensions according to paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of Law No. 889-VIII and are not grounds for reviewing previously assigned civil servant pensions.

According to the Supreme Court, the mere adoption of Cabinet Resolution No. 823 after the pension assignment did not grant the Pension Fund the authority to review the already determined pension amount, as at the time of assignment all submitted documents met the requirements of current legislation.

The court referred to Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Constitutional Court's practice regarding the principle of non-retroactivity of normative legal acts. The panel emphasized that the new regulatory act cannot apply to legal relations that arose and were realized before its entry into force.

The Supreme Court also noted that after Resolution No. 823, the Pension Fund effectively reduced the plaintiff's pension from 16,402.26 UAH to 7,670 UAH and transferred her to another type of pension provision. These actions were solely due to the change in regulatory regulation.

Evaluating the application submitted in February 2025, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not request a pension recalculation based on new or additional documents. She actually demanded the restoration of pension payments at the amount determined at the initial assignment. The case materials do not confirm the submission of any new documents.

Thus, the Pension Fund unjustifiably equated such an appeal with a pension recalculation request and mistakenly refused it, citing the absence of grounds to consider the certificates.

Additionally, the Supreme Court applied the provisions of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and stated that the right to a pension is covered by guarantees of peaceful enjoyment of property. The court emphasized that a person assigned a pension in the manner and amount defined by law has legitimate expectations regarding the stability of its payment.

The panel stressed that interference by a state body in this right by reducing the pension amount solely due to changes in regulatory regulation violates the principle of legal certainty and does not meet the criteria for permissible interference with a person's property rights.

Based on the results of case No. 580/1829/25, the Supreme Court recognized as unlawful and canceled the decision of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Donetsk region refusing to transfer to a civil servant's pension.

The court also obliged the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Cherkasy region to calculate and pay the plaintiff an old-age pension from December 1, 2024, according to Article 37 of the Law "On Civil Service" in the amount of 60% of the salary indicated in the certificates dated February 5, 2024, i.e., the amount determined at the initial pension assignment, taking into account amounts already paid.

The cassation court's ruling is final and cannot be appealed.

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 updated on the most important events.