The Pension Fund demanded the prosecutor return UAH 28,000 of pension overpayment — how the case ended in court

The Pension Fund cannot demand the return of an excessively paid pension solely due to its own error during the assignment if the pensioner acted in good faith and did not conceal information. This conclusion was reached by the Odessa Court of Appeal, which upheld the decision of the court of first instance that denied the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odessa region the recovery of over 28 thousand UAH of overpayment from the prosecutor.

The court emphasized that the Pension Fund's error related to the incorrect establishment of the pension code and data entry into the software is not a "calculation error" within the meaning of Article 1215 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, and therefore by itself does not create grounds for returning already paid funds.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff in the case was the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odessa region.

The Pension Fund stated that a former prosecutor employee was assigned a pension for long service in December 2023 in accordance with the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office." After an internal review of the pension case, the Pension Fund concluded that during the assignment, employees incorrectly established the pension code and did not take into account the specifics of the claimant's employment, who continued to work as a prosecutor.

As a result, the Pension Fund recalculated the pension, reducing its amount, and established an overpayment of 28,268.45 UAH for the period from December 13, 2023, to February 29, 2024. The pensioner was offered to voluntarily return these funds or agree to their deduction, but he did not. After that, the Pension Fund filed a lawsuit to recover the overpayment.

At the same time, the courts established that when applying for the pension, the defendant submitted all necessary documents through the Pension Fund's web portal and explicitly indicated in the questionnaire that he continued to work, including in a specialty that gives the right to a pension for long service. Therefore, this information was known to the Pension Fund at the time of pension assignment.

Moreover, in response to the pensioner's complaint, the Pension Fund's Main Department effectively confirmed that the overpayment arose not due to his fault, but because the Fund's employees did not consider his employment as a prosecutor. For this reason, the Pension Fund did not establish grounds for deducting this amount from the pension.

What the courts decided

The Ovidiopol District Court denied the claim, and the Odessa Court of Appeal agreed with this conclusion.

The panel of judges noted that according to Article 1215 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, pensions voluntarily paid as a means of subsistence generally are not subject to return. Exceptions are possible only in two cases: if the payment resulted from a calculation error by the payer or if the recipient acted in bad faith, including providing false information or concealing circumstances affecting the right or amount of the pension.

The court also noted that the legislation provides an exhaustive list of grounds for recovering overpaid pensions. In particular, this is possible in cases of abuse by the pensioner or submission of false data by him or the insurer. None of these circumstances were established in this case.

Why the court did not recognize the Pension Fund's error as a calculation error

The key issue in the dispute was whether the error made by the Pension Fund could be considered a calculation error.

The Pension Fund argued that the overpayment arose precisely because of such an error and therefore the funds should be returned.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. The panel of judges emphasized that a calculation (arithmetical) error should be understood as mistakes in arithmetic calculations, such as incorrect addition, multiplication, double payment, or other miscalculations.

In this case, the overpayment arose not due to an arithmetic miscalculation but as a result of incorrect data entry into the software and automatic pension calculation. Such errors are not calculation errors within the meaning of Article 1215 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and by themselves do not provide grounds for returning already paid funds.

The pensioner did not conceal information

The court also found no abuse on the part of the defendant.

When applying for the pension, he informed the Pension Fund that he continued to work as a prosecutor. All necessary documents were properly submitted, and the plaintiff did not provide evidence that he gave false information or concealed information.

Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the pensioner acted in good faith, and therefore there are no legal grounds to demand the return of the overpaid pension.

The court referred to the practice of the Supreme Court and the ECHR

In justifying its decision, the Court of Appeal took into account the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding the concept of a calculation error, as well as the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.

In particular, the court referred to the ECHR decision in the case of "Rysovskyi v. Ukraine," which stated that the risk of any error by a state body should be borne by the state itself, and errors cannot be corrected at the expense of the persons affected by them.

Since the Pension Fund did not prove either the presence of a calculation error or bad faith or abuse by the pensioner, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and left the decision of the Ovidiopol District Court of the Odessa region unchanged. The ruling in case 509/3576/24 came into legal force from the day of its adoption.

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