Case: We appealed the Pension Fund’s refusal to grant an old-age pension due to the failure to count work experience

Pensioner Natalia Grigorivna contacted the “Prikhodko&Partners” Law Firm; she was denied a pension due to a lack of 30 years of service (25 years, 7 months, and 9 days were credited).

The Pension Fund body did not count individual periods of labor activity, referring to:

• formal deficiencies in filling out the work book;
• lack of information on the payment of contributions in the individual information about the insured person;
• deficiencies in the documents.

“Prikhodko&Partners” Law Firm and Natalia Grigorivna signed an agreement to provide legal assistance in a pension case. A lawsuit was filed to protect the right to pension benefits.

The trial court, having examined the evidence presented, partially granted the claim and counted only the periods of employment for which the Pension Fund had disregarded seniority, citing formal deficiencies in completing the work record book (approximately 3 years, 4 months, and 18 days). Regarding the other unaccounted periods, the court agreed with the Pension Fund’s position and disregarded them.

Disagreeing with the ruling, an appeal was filed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, upholding the defendant’s formal approach to assessing the evidence.

The case was subsequently referred to the cassation court. The cassation court, having reviewed the court decisions and the application of substantive law, concluded that the courts of the previous instances had misinterpreted the provisions of pension legislation and the principle of social protection.

On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on case № 600/3079/24-a, which stated:

– the decision of the Chernivtsi district administrative court of April 17, 2025 and the ruling of the Seventh appellate administrative court of June 24, 2025 in case № 600/3079/24-a were overturned in part in relation to the refusal to satisfy the claims for inclusion in the insurance period of the periods of work from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2005 and from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007.

– a new resolution was adopted in this part to satisfy the claims and to set out the operative part as follows:

1. “To recognize as unlawful and overturn the decision of the Main administration of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Chernivtsi region dated January 9, 2024, № o/r 104650016329, which denied the assignment of a pension.
2. To recognize as unlawful the inaction of the Main administration of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Chernivtsi region regarding the failure to credit periods of work from August 15, 1983 to August 22, 1986, and from November 5, 1990 to March 14, 1991.
3. To recognize as unlawful the inaction of the Main administration of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Chernivtsi region regarding the failure to credit periods of work from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2005, and from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007.
4. The Main administration of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Chernivtsi region is required to include the periods of work from August 15, 1983, to August 22, 1986, from November 5, 1990, to March 14, 1991, from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2005, and from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2007, in the length of service/insurance record.
5. The Main administration of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Chernivtsi region is required to re-examine the application of January 3, 2024, for the appointment of a pension, taking into account the court’s findings.”

Pension law lawyer Alena Oleksandrivna filed a legal request regarding the execution of the court decision by the PFU body.

In response to the lawyer’s request, the Pension Fund of Ukraine provided a letter regarding the execution of the court decision, which indicates that the Client has been credited with periods of employment and assigned a pension in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On compulsory state pension insurance” from December 15, 2023.

This case demonstrates that even negative decisions by courts of first instance and appellate courts are not final in pension disputes. The cassation court confirmed that a formal approach to assessing insurance coverage cannot prevail over an individual’s right to social security.

A persistent legal position and the correct application of substantive law made it possible to restore the pensioner’s violated rights and achieve a fair decision.

If you have a dispute with the Pension Fund over your pension, don’t be upset or accept the Pension Fund’s decision. Our lawyers have repeatedly proven in court the unlawfulness of the Pension Fund’s refusals and other questionable decisions. Contact our pension lawyer for a consultation on your case.