Case: Appealed against refusal to grant old-age pension

Client: pensioner, 60 years old

Region: Kyiv

The essence of the case (problem): they refused to assign a pension due to the lack of 30 years of experience and the PFU noted the inconsistency of the permanent residence certificate with other documents provided.

Desired result: crediting the experience and assigning a pension by age.

Responsible lawyer: Chmona Alona

A pensioner who was denied a pension due to the lack of 30 years of experience contacted the Law Office of Prikhodko & Partners.

The refusal to grant a pension indicated that the PFU body did not count the work and insurance experience, since on the first page (title page) of the work book the date of birth is indicated without the day and month and there is no seal of the enterprise (or the seal of the HR department) on which the work book was first filled out, which violates paragraphs 2.11, 2.12 of the “Instructions on the procedure for maintaining work books of employees”.

In addition, the PFU body noted that the permanent residence certificate indicates only the last name and first name (without the patronymic), and other documents (taxpayer card, work book, diploma, child’s birth certificate, etc.) contain the last name, first name and patronymic.

During the consultation, the lawyer provided explanations with reference to the norms of legislation and the practice of the Supreme Court that the burden of proving the completeness and clarity of the data indicated in his work book cannot be shifted to the individual and the individual cannot and should not be responsible for filling out the work book, since the entry in the work book was made by a responsible employee of the enterprise where the plaintiff worked.

Since the PFU body illegally failed to count the length of service and insurance experience and, in connection with this, refused to assign an old-age pension, it was proposed to immediately resolve the issue of counting the length of service and assigning a pension through judicial proceedings.

An agreement was concluded between the Law Office “Prikhodko & Partners” and the pensioner on the provision of legal assistance for the support of the case regarding the judicial support of the case for the purpose of crediting the length of service and assigning an old-age pension.

We prepared and sent a statement of claim to the court.

By the decision of the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court dated 03.06.2024 in case № 160/6147/24, the claim was satisfied, the court:

• declared unlawful and canceled the decision of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Dnipropetrovsk region dated 28.08.2023 under № 262740009963 on the refusal to assign an old-age pension;
• obliged the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Dnipropetrovsk region to re-examine the pensioner’s application for the assignment of an old-age pension from 08/20/2023, taking into account the work book PT-I № 0289035, as well as taking into account the court’s conclusions set out in this decision, and to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the legislation.

The PFU body did not agree with the decision of the court of first instance and filed an appeal, however, by the decision of the Third Administrative Court of Appeal dated 09/27/2024, the opening of appeal proceedings on the appeal of the Main Department of the PFU in the Dnipropetrovsk region against the decision of the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court dated 06/03/2024 in case № 160/6147/24.

After the court decision entered into legal force, AB filed a lawyer’s request for the execution of the court decision by the PFU body.

In response to the lawyer’s request, the PFU body provided a letter regarding the voluntary execution of the court decision, from which it can be seen that the Client was assigned a pension from 09/21/2023.

If you need help from a lawyer in pension matters – fill out the feedback form and our lawyer will contact you as soon as possible!