Shtykh Case: Successful Appeal Against Refusal to Grant a Preferential Pension
THE SHTYKH CASE: SUCCESSFUL GRANTING OF A PREFERENTIAL PENSION THROUGH COURT
A pension is a well-earned form of social security after many years of employment. As a general rule, an old-age pension is granted upon reaching the statutory retirement age and having the required insurance record. At the same time, certain categories of employees are entitled to preferential pension conditions. These may include a reduced retirement age and special requirements regarding the length of insurance and preferential service. Such benefits generally apply to persons employed in harmful or difficult working conditions.
Before applying to the Pension Fund of Ukraine for a pension, an applicant must prepare the required set of documents. In the case of a preferential pension, an additional document may be required to confirm employment in conditions that entitle the person to preferential pension treatment. Such a certificate confirms the nature of the work performed and the relevant working conditions. However, where all the necessary information is clearly stated in the employment record book, obtaining an additional clarifying certificate may not be necessary.
In practice, however, the Pension Fund authorities may still require applicants to provide additional clarifying certificates when applying for preferential pensions. Depending on the circumstances, such requirements may be unlawful.
This was precisely the situation faced by Mr. Shtykh, who contacted our law firm for legal assistance. The Pension Fund refused to grant him a preferential pension, claiming that his preferential service record had not been properly confirmed by the required documents. In addition, the Pension Fund refused to include a period of employment in the Russian Federation in his insurance record because the applicant had not provided documents confirming the payment of insurance contributions.
We considered the Pension Fund’s actions unlawful and therefore decided to challenge its refusal in court. Our legal position was based on the following arguments.
First, the Pension Fund failed to take into account the provisions of the international agreements applicable to the relevant periods, including agreements governing the recognition of employment periods acquired in the territories of participating states. Furthermore, the Pension Fund did not question the authenticity of the documents submitted by the applicant and, before refusing to grant the pension, did not take appropriate steps to obtain additional confirmation from the applicant’s former employer or the relevant archive.
Second, the applicant’s employment record book contained the information necessary to establish his entitlement to a preferential pension. In particular, the periods of employment as a mechanic responsible for the repair of boiler-house equipment contained information regarding the nature and conditions of his work relevant to List No. 2. The entries were properly made and contained no inaccuracies concerning the relevant periods of employment. Moreover, in its refusal, the Pension Fund did not explain why the information contained in the employment record book should be disregarded or identify any incompleteness or unreliability of those records.
Taking these circumstances into account, we argued that the applicant’s employment record book was sufficient to confirm the relevant preferential service periods. Therefore, there was no legal necessity to provide additional clarifying certificates.
After considering the case, the court of first instance upheld Mr. Shtykh’s claims. In particular, the court ordered the Pension Fund to grant him a preferential pension and make the corresponding pension payments.
The Pension Fund disagreed with the judgment and filed an appeal. However, the appeal was subsequently returned because the Pension Fund failed to pay the required court fee. As a result, the judgment of the court of first instance became final and legally binding.
Following the court proceedings, our law firm also ensured the prompt enforcement of the judgment. As a result, Mr. Shtykh was granted his preferential pension from the date of his original application to the Pension Fund, and the outstanding pension arrears were paid to him in full.
