The Court Requires Counting Military Service and Education as Special Work Experience for Calculating Ten Pensions

The Lviv District Administrative Court considered a dispute between a citizen and the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Luhansk region in simplified proceedings. The dispute concerned the right to receive a one-time financial aid amounting to ten monthly pensions upon pension assignment by age. The plaintiff requested the court to recognise the inaction of the Pension Fund, which refused to recalculate the pension and pay the specified aid, as unlawful. They asked for an obligation for the recalculation and payment.

Case Circumstances

The plaintiff applied to the court after the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Luhansk region refused to recalculate his pension and pay a one-time financial aid amounting to ten monthly pensions, as stipulated by paragraph 7-1 of section XV "Final provisions" of the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance."

He argued that as of the pension assignment date, his special work experience, confirmed by entries in his employment record book, exceeded 36 years, meeting the legal requirements for receiving the one-time financial aid. This aid is paid to individuals with the necessary insurance experience retiring by age from positions granting the right to a pension for long service.

The Pension Fund opposed the claim, stating that periods of conscript military service and education at the preparatory department of Chernivtsi Medical Institute cannot be counted towards special insurance work experience. According to the defendant, the Procedure for calculating insurance experience, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution No. 1191, does not include such periods in the experience that entitles to one-time aid.

The Pension Fund highlighted that the plaintiff’s total insurance experience is 37 years 10 months 4 days, but the special insurance experience considered for the aid is only 34 years 9 months 27 days, less than the legally required 35 years for men. Therefore, the Pension Fund refused the recalculation and aid payment.

The case materials revealed that the plaintiff’s pension by age was assigned from January 5, 2026, according to Article 26 of the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance." Subsequently, he applied for pension recalculation and one-time aid payment, but the Main Department of the Pension Fund in Luhansk region denied the request on April 10, 2026.

Case No. 380/9673/26 also showed that the Pension Fund did not count two periods towards special experience: conscript military service from October 20, 1984, to October 27, 1986, and education at the preparatory department of Chernivtsi Medical Institute from November 20, 1986, to July 25, 1987.

The legality of excluding these periods from the special insurance experience, which entitles to one-time aid of ten monthly pensions, was under judicial review.

Court’s Position and Conclusions

In assessing the dispute, the court relied on Articles 19 and 46 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On Pension Provision," the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance," the Procedure for calculating insurance experience entitling to financial aid approved by Cabinet Resolution No. 1191 dated November 23, 2011, and the List of institutions and positions entitling to a pension for long service approved by Cabinet Resolution No. 909 dated November 4, 1993.

The court pointed out that according to paragraph 7-1 of section XV "Final provisions" of the Law "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance," a one-time financial aid of ten monthly pensions is paid to individuals who, on the day of reaching pension age, worked in state or communal institutions in positions entitling to a pension for long service, have the necessary insurance experience in such positions, and have not previously received any type of pension. The court concluded that the right to such aid is linked precisely to the presence of the required special insurance experience acquired in the legislatively defined positions, retiring from these positions, and the absence of receiving another pension before the age pension. A similar legal conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court in its ruling dated March 13, 2018, in case No. 234/13835/17.

Regarding the conscript military service period, the court highlighted that according to part five of Article 242 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, Supreme Court conclusions must be considered when applying legal norms. The court referred to the Supreme Court ruling dated February 13, 2018, in case No. 738/1246/15-a, which concluded that service in the Armed Forces of the USSR before January 1, 1992, should be counted towards work experience for specialty entitling to a pension for long service for education workers. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s conscript military service from October 20, 1984, to October 27, 1986, must be counted towards insurance experience entitling to one-time financial aid.

Assessing the legality of excluding the preparatory department education period from November 20, 1986, to July 25, 1987, the court found this period confirmed by an entry in the plaintiff’s employment record book.

The court stated that paragraph "d" of part three of Article 56 of the Law "On Pension Provision" allows counting education time in higher and specialised secondary educational institutions towards work experience. The court recognised the Pension Fund’s refusal to count this education period towards insurance experience as unlawful.

In conclusion, the court found that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to confirm the right to receive the one-time financial aid of ten monthly pensions as provided by paragraph 7-1 of section XV "Final provisions" of the Law "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance." The defendant failed to provide proper legal grounds for refusing to include the conscript military service and preparatory department education periods in the special insurance experience.

The court noted that the Pension Fund did not fully examine the documents submitted by the plaintiff with the aid application and incorrectly applied legal norms, violating his right to proper social protection.

The court concluded that the contested decision does not meet the legality criteria defined by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, and the claims are justified and subject to full satisfaction.

The court separately noted that the obligation to recalculate the pension, accrue, and pay the one-time financial aid lies with the territorial body of the Pension Fund of Ukraine, which made the relevant decision based on the principle of extraterritoriality.

This conclusion aligns with the Supreme Court’s legal position expressed in rulings dated February 8, 2024, in case No. 500/1216/23 and July 9, 2024, in case No. 240/16372/23.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.