The widow of a miner had her pension cut by 808 UAH due to indexation limits: the appellate court put an end to the dispute

The Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal considered the dispute regarding the legality of limiting the indexation of the survivor's pension after assigning an additional payment to the widow of the deceased miner. The court examined the arguments of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odessa region, which appealed the decision of the first instance court recognizing the limitation of indexation as unlawful and obliging to recalculate pension payments without applying such limitation.

Essence of the case

The plaintiff applied to the court demanding to recognize as unlawful the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odessa region regarding the reduction of the survivor's pension by the amounts of indexation limitation, and to oblige the Pension Fund to recalculate the pension according to her submitted applications.

The case materials established that from February 18, 2025, the plaintiff was assigned a survivor's pension according to Article 36 of the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance." The initial pension amount was 4598.16 UAH, which corresponded to 50 percent of the deceased breadwinner's pension of 9196.32 UAH.

After indexation on April 8, 2025, the Pension Fund recalculated the pension, determining its amount at 9221.87 UAH, based on 50 percent of the breadwinner's pension of 18443.73 UAH. At the same time, an indexation limit was applied, which reduced the pension amount by 565.84 UAH.

Subsequently, the plaintiff applied for an additional payment as the widow of the deceased miner according to part one of Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine "On Increasing the Prestige of Mining Work." By decision dated June 10, 2025, the Pension Fund assigned such an additional payment of 2361 UAH monthly. After this, the survivor's pension was set at 10214.50 UAH, based on 50 percent of the breadwinner's pension of 20429 UAH, plus the additional payment of 2361 UAH.

However, during this recalculation, the defendant again applied the indexation limit, reducing the pension by 565.84 UAH for the indexation conducted from March 1, 2023, and by 242.63 UAH for the indexation conducted from March 1, 2025. The total amount of this limitation was 808.47 UAH.

Believing that the limitation of indexation after determining the minimum guaranteed pension amount for the widow of the deceased miner contradicts the law and violates her right to proper pension provision, the plaintiff turned to the court.

The Odessa District Administrative Court partially satisfied the claim. The court recognized the actions of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odessa region regarding the limitation of indexation of the survivor's pension as unlawful and obliged to recalculate and pay the pension from February 18, 2025, and from June 1, 2025, according to Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine "On Increasing the Prestige of Mining Work" and Article 28 of the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance" without applying the indexation limit. In addition, the court fee of 1211.20 UAH was recovered from the Pension Fund.

Disagreeing with this decision, the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odessa region filed an appeal. In the appeal, the defendant stated that the pension indexation was carried out according to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine resolutions No. 168 dated February 24, 2023, No. 185 dated February 23, 2024, and No. 209 dated February 25, 2025. Since the total indexation amount exceeded the limit set by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 1500 UAH, the Pension Fund considered it lawful to apply the limitation to the excess amount and insisted that all recalculations were made in accordance with current legislation considering government-imposed limits.

Position and conclusions of the appellate court

Reviewing the first instance court's decision within the arguments of the appeal, the panel of judges proceeded from the fact that according to Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine, state authorities and their officials must act only on the basis, within the powers, and in the manner defined by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. Article 46 of the Constitution guarantees citizens the right to social protection, including in case of loss of a breadwinner, and pension payments must ensure a living standard not lower than the subsistence minimum.

The court noted that the disputed legal relations are regulated by the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance," which defines the procedure for appointment, recalculation, and payment of pensions, as well as the Law of Ukraine "On Increasing the Prestige of Mining Work," which establishes special state guarantees for pension provision for miners and their families.

The panel noted that the parties did not dispute the fact that the plaintiff receives a survivor's pension covered by the Law of Ukraine "On Increasing the Prestige of Mining Work."

According to Article 8 of this Law, the minimum pension amount for miners with the required underground work experience is set at 80 percent of the salary but not less than three subsistence minimums for persons who lost working capacity. Similar guarantees are enshrined in Article 28 of the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance."

The appellate court established that after assigning the additional payment to the widow of the deceased miner, the Pension Fund determined the survivor's pension amount but simultaneously reduced it by the indexation limitation amounts — 565.84 UAH for the indexation from March 1, 2023, and 242.63 UAH for the indexation from March 1, 2025.

The panel emphasized that the subject of the dispute is the legality of applying such limitation after determining the minimum guaranteed pension amount by law.

The court thoroughly analyzed the provisions of Article 42 of the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance," the Law of Ukraine "On Indexation of Monetary Incomes of the Population," the Budget Code of Ukraine, the Procedure for pension recalculation approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 124, as well as Cabinet of Ministers resolutions No. 168, No. 185, and No. 209, which established annual pension indexation coefficients in 2023–2025.

The panel noted that these Cabinet of Ministers resolutions indeed provide for a maximum pension increase limit due to indexation of 1500 UAH.

However, the court concluded that in the disputed relations, the Pension Fund applied this limitation incorrectly.

The appellate court stressed that the defendant applied the indexation limitation after assigning the additional payment according to the Law "On Increasing the Prestige of Mining Work," i.e., after determining the minimum guaranteed pension amount provided by Article 8 of Law No. 345-VI and the third paragraph of part one of Article 28 of Law No. 1058-IV.

The court considered such an approach inconsistent with the requirements of the legislation.

The panel also noted that the survivor's pension amounts to 50 percent of the breadwinner's old-age pension. Therefore, considering the guarantees established by Article 8 of the Law "On Increasing the Prestige of Mining Work," the plaintiff's pension amount should be determined as 50 percent of the proper pension amount of the breadwinner.

According to the court's conclusion, the Pension Fund's actions to limit indexation after determining the minimum guaranteed pension amount contradict the law.

The appellate court also found the Pension Fund's references to Cabinet of Ministers resolutions establishing indexation limits unfounded. The panel noted that according to Article 8 of the Law "On Increasing the Prestige of Mining Work" and Article 37 of the Law "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance," the survivor's pension is calculated as a percentage of the breadwinner's earnings and is subject to full indexation. Reducing the due indexation amount, in the court's opinion, narrows the person's right to proper pension provision.

Therefore, in case No. 420/20504/25, the panel concluded that the arguments of the appeal do not refute the correctness of the first instance court's conclusions and essentially amount to a reassessment of already examined evidence.

Applying Article 316 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the Fifth Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odessa region and left the decision of the Odessa District Administrative Court unchanged.

The court also noted that the case was considered under simplified proceedings as a case of minor complexity; therefore, according to part five of Article 328 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the appellate court's ruling is not subject to cassation appeal, except in cases directly provided by law.

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.