Is Work Experience in Russia Considered When Granting a Pension: Court Overturned the Pension Fund's Refusal

The Zaporizhzhia District Administrative Court reviewed a case against the Main Departments of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Kyiv and Zaporizhzhia region regarding the legality of the refusal to recalculate the pension. The dispute concerned the inclusion of the work period in the territory of the Russian Federation in the insurance record and the consideration of the salary earned during that period when calculating the pension.

Circumstances of the Case

The plaintiff applied to the territorial bodies of the Pension Fund with a request to recalculate the pension due to the submission of additional documents. To confirm the right to recalculate, he provided a work record book issued in 2004 and a salary certificate issued by JSC "Lipetsk Confectionery Factory "LikOnf," which contained information about earnings for the period from June 16, 2004, to May 31, 2007, in the territory of the Russian Federation. The plaintiff requested to include this period in the insurance record, consider the earned salary when determining the pension amount, and recalculate the pension from April 2, 2026.

The Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Zaporizhzhia region refused to recalculate the pension, justifying the decision by the fact that from January 1, 2023, the Russian Federation ceased participation in the Agreement on Guarantees of Rights of Citizens of the Commonwealth of Independent States in the Field of Pension Provision dated March 13, 1992. According to the pension authority, after Russia's withdrawal from this Agreement, there are no legal grounds to include the relevant work period in the insurance record or to consider the salary when recalculating the pension.

Disagreeing with this decision, the plaintiff appealed to the administrative court. He noted that the work was performed during the period when international treaties between Ukraine and the CIS countries, as well as the bilateral Agreement between the governments of Ukraine and Russia on labor activity and social protection of citizens, were in force. Therefore, in his opinion, the Pension Fund's refusal contradicts the law and violates the right to proper pension provision.

In responses to the claim, both territorial bodies of the Pension Fund requested to deny the claim, insisting that after Russia's withdrawal from the 1992 Agreement, there are no legal mechanisms to consider the disputed work period and submitted documents when determining the insurance record and pension amount.

Position and Conclusions of the Court

The court proceeded from the fact that according to Articles 8, 19, 22, and 46 of the Constitution of Ukraine, state authorities must act exclusively on the basis of law, and citizens' rights to social protection and pension provision are constitutional guarantees whose content and scope cannot be narrowed.

The court noted that the issues of pension assignment and recalculation are regulated by the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance," which provides for the consideration of Ukraine's international treaties in the field of pension provision. At the time the plaintiff performed his work, the Agreement on Guarantees of Rights of Citizens of the CIS in the Field of Pension Provision dated March 13, 1992, as well as the Agreement between the governments of Ukraine and Russia dated January 14, 1993, on labor activity and social protection of citizens working outside their states, and the Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Labor Migration and Social Protection of Migrant Workers dated April 15, 1994, were in force. These international treaties provided for mutual recognition of work experience and consideration of earnings received in the territories of the participating states when determining pension rights and calculating pensions.

The court emphasized that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine decided to withdraw from the 1992 Agreement only at the end of 2022, and according to the legal position of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, normative legal acts do not have retroactive effect. Therefore, the legal norms in force during the period of the international Agreement's validity must apply to legal relations that arose during that period. For this reason, the termination of participation by Ukraine or the Russian Federation in the Agreement does not affect the evaluation of work experience acquired in 2004–2007.

Evaluating the evidence, the court found that the work record book contains properly executed entries about work activity, certified by company stamps, without corrections or signs of unreliability, and the Pension Fund did not provide any evidence to question the accuracy of the information entered. Therefore, there are no grounds to disregard it as proper proof of work experience.

The court reached a similar conclusion regarding the salary certificate. It noted that it contains information about specific salary amounts for the relevant period, was issued based on payment documents, contains all necessary requisites, and is properly certified. At the same time, the defendants did not verify this certificate or prove its unreliability or non-compliance with legal requirements. Under these circumstances, there are no grounds to refuse to consider the provided information when calculating the pension.

The court also noted that after introducing the principle of extraterritoriality, applications for pension assignment and recalculation are reviewed by the territorial body of the Pension Fund determined by the automated system. The Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Zaporizhzhia region reviewed the plaintiff's application and made the decision to refuse the pension recalculation; therefore, this body is the proper authority authorized to resolve the issue of including the disputed period in the insurance record and conducting the pension recalculation. In this regard, the court found no grounds to satisfy the claims against the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Kyiv.

As a result of the case review, the court concluded that the decision of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Zaporizhzhia region to refuse the pension recalculation is unlawful and subject to cancellation.

The court obliged this body to include the plaintiff's work period from June 16, 2004, to May 31, 2007, in the insurance record, consider the salary for this period according to the provided certificate, and recalculate the pension from April 2, 2026. The court denied the plaintiff's claims against the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Kyiv. The court also recovered the court fee in favor of the plaintiff at the expense of the budget allocations of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Zaporizhzhia region.

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.