The Pension Fund refused a pension due to work experience in Russia, Kyrgyzstan, and India: the appeal upheld the decision in favor of the pensioner

The Second Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region and agreed with the conclusions of the court of first instance regarding the illegality of the refusal to assign an old-age pension. The dispute arose due to the Pension Fund's failure to consider certain periods of the applicant's study and employment when determining his insurance record.

Essence of the case

In July 2025, a citizen applied for an old-age pension in accordance with the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance." Based on the principle of extraterritoriality, the application was reviewed by the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region, which by decision dated July 17, 2025, refused to assign the pension.

The pension authority determined the applicant's insurance record as 31 years, 10 months, and 2 days, whereas at least 32 years of insurance record was required for pension assignment in 2025.

Periods of study from September 1, 1982, to June 15, 1983, at a technical school in the city of Frunze, Kyrgyz SSR, as well as the period of work from August 15, 1983, to November 1, 1983, in the territory of the Kyrgyz SSR, were not counted towards the insurance record. The reason was the failure to provide documents issued by the pension authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic confirming the absence of pension payments for these periods.

Additionally, the Pension Fund refused to consider periods of work from November 5, 2004, to April 9, 2006, from May 18, 2006, to May 16, 2007, and from September 13, 2007, to September 8, 2009. During this time, the applicant worked at facilities of JSC "VO Technopromexport" in India. According to the respondent, current legislation does not provide for the inclusion in the insurance record of work periods after January 1, 1992, outside Ukraine in former USSR states with which there are no valid international pension agreements.

The Kharkiv District Administrative Court recognized the Pension Fund's decision as unlawful and canceled it, obliging the respondent to reconsider the pension application with the inclusion of the disputed periods in the insurance record.

The appellate court's position on periods of study and work in the Kyrgyz SSR

The appellate court agreed with the first instance court's conclusion that the Pension Fund incorrectly applied the provisions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 562 dated May 16, 2025.

The court noted that paragraph 4 of the Procedure approved by this resolution directly provides a mechanism of action in cases where it is impossible to obtain information from the pension authorities of another state or when international information exchange is effectively not carried out.

In such a situation, the pension should be calculated taking into account periods of work on the territory of the republics of the former USSR before January 1, 1992. The court emphasized that the obligation to obtain information about the absence of pension payments from another state lies with the Pension Fund of Ukraine, not with the person applying for the pension.

Since at the time of the case review it was practically impossible to obtain the relevant confirmations from the competent authorities of the Kyrgyz Republic, the applicant's periods of study and work in the Kyrgyz SSR were to be considered when calculating his insurance record.

The appellate court's position on work abroad after 1992

The court separately analyzed the issue of including the applicant's work periods from 2004 to 2009 in the insurance record.

The panel of judges proceeded from the fact that at the time such insurance record was acquired, international agreements in the field of pension provision were in effect, in particular the Agreement on Guarantees of the Rights of Citizens of the CIS Member States in the Field of Pension Provision dated March 13, 1992, and the Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Labor Migration and Social Protection of Migrant Workers dated April 15, 1994.

The court noted that according to these international acts, work experience acquired on the territory of the participating states was subject to mutual recognition and consideration when determining pension rights.

The panel emphasized that Ukraine's subsequent withdrawal from the 1992 Agreement, formalized by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 1328 dated November 29, 2022, cannot affect pension rights already acquired by citizens.

The court referred to paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the 1992 Agreement, which provides for the preservation of pension rights arising during its validity, as well as to Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, according to which the termination of an international treaty does not affect rights and legal situations arising from its execution before termination.

According to the court, a person who worked abroad during the period of international guarantees had legitimate expectations regarding the consideration of such work experience when assigning a pension. Therefore, refusal to include it due to subsequent denunciation of the relevant international agreements contradicts the principle of legal certainty and constitutional guarantees of social protection.

The court also noted that the records in the employment book and its inserts contain all necessary details, references to orders of hiring and dismissal, signatures of authorized persons, and stamps, contain no corrections or signs of unreliability, and therefore are proper evidence of acquiring the relevant work experience.

Conclusions of the court

The appellate court in case No. 520/25722/25 concluded that the Pension Fund unjustifiably did not consider periods of study in the Kyrgyz SSR, work on the territory of the Kyrgyz SSR before 1992, as well as periods of work abroad from 2004 to 2009.

The panel confirmed that refusal to include these periods contradicts the provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance," Ukraine's international agreements, and the principles of legal certainty and social protection.

The court also rejected the Pension Fund's arguments about judicial interference in the discretionary powers of the authority. According to the panel, in this case, the respondent had no discretion regarding the non-inclusion of work periods, since in the presence of grounds provided by law, there was only one lawful option — to include the relevant periods when deciding on pension assignment.

As a result, the appeal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region was dismissed, and the decision of the Kharkiv District Administrative Court remained unchanged.

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