A woman was denied by the Pension Fund and then by the court — the Supreme Court named the reason

Disputes regarding the appeal by individuals against decisions, actions, or inactions of the Pension Fund of Ukraine (as the successor of the Social Insurance Fund) concerning the calculation, appointment, recalculation, and payment of insurance benefits under compulsory state social insurance are subject to consideration under the rules of administrative, not civil, proceedings. Such bodies act as authorities exercising administrative powers performing management functions in the field of social protection.

A woman applied to the court after the death of her husband, who had worked for many years in harmful conditions and was diagnosed with cancer.

She believed she was entitled to one-time and monthly insurance payments due to the death of the breadwinner from an occupational disease.

However, the Pension Fund refused to grant these payments.

To substantiate her claims, the plaintiff referred to the fact that her husband worked for almost 20 years in harmful working conditions, as a result of which he was diagnosed with "occupational cancer." The husband died before he could undergo a medical and social expert commission (MSEC) examination to determine the degree of disability. The plaintiff believed that the Pension Fund, as the successor of the Social Insurance Fund, unjustifiably refused to grant her the one-time and monthly insurance payments related to the death of the breadwinner from an occupational disease, and therefore requested to recover these funds through the court.

The court of first instance, whose conclusions were agreed upon by the appellate court, denied the claim because the woman is not a person entitled to receive the disputed monthly insurance payments after the husband’s death in case of loss of the breadwinner, nor is she an heir of the deceased husband regarding the receipt of insurance payments after his death, since her deceased husband is not an heir in this case, as he was not a recipient of the disputed insurance payments.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusions of the lower courts, annulled their decisions, and closed the proceedings in the case, noting that the court closes proceedings if the case is not subject to consideration under civil procedure rules (paragraph 1, part 1, article 255 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

According to Articles 4 and 5 of the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Social Insurance," the Pension Fund of Ukraine is an authorized management body that exercises administrative management functions in the field of social protection.

The Supreme Court emphasized that when determining jurisdiction, it is necessary to proceed from the essence of the right for the protection of which the person applied. In this case, the plaintiff is effectively appealing the refusal to grant her insurance payments as a person entitled to them after the death of the husband-breadwinner. This is not a private law dispute about inheritance of already accrued amounts but a dispute about the right to social assistance.

Since the plaintiff’s claims are related to proving the grounds for payment of social funds by an authority exercising administrative powers, such a dispute is public-law. Therefore, the case must be considered under the rules of administrative proceedings. By closing the proceedings due to violation of subject-matter jurisdiction rules, the cassation court explained to the plaintiff her right to apply within 10 days with a request to refer the case to an administrative court.

The Supreme Court ruling dated June 19, 2026, in case No. 176/2469/22 (proceeding No. 61-3707sv25).

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