Preferential Calculation of ATO Service for Police Pensions in Ukraine

While performing their duties, police officers constantly risk their health and lives in order to maintain public order, protect citizens, and prevent and stop offences. Due to the increased risks associated with police service, officers are entitled to additional social guarantees, including the right to a pension for years of service.

In addition to the general right to such a pension, the pension rights of police officers are regulated by special legislation applicable to particular circumstances. The hostilities connected with the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) were no exception. In particular, under Resolution No. 393 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, periods of service during which a police officer participated in the Anti-Terrorist Operation may be calculated on preferential terms. Specifically, one month of participation in the ATO may be counted as three months of service.

This system is intended to provide additional social protection and compensate officers for the increased risks to their lives and health while protecting the security of the state. However, in practice, its application has raised a number of legal issues. One of them concerns police officers who served in the ATO zone and have sufficient years of service to qualify for a pension when the preferential calculation under Resolution No. 393 is applied, but do not have the required number of calendar years of service stipulated by pension legislation.

To answer this question, it is necessary to consider the legal position of the Supreme Court.

The circumstances of one such case concerned a police officer who was deployed to the ATO zone and performed service there. After completing his service in the ATO, he applied for a pension for years of service, requesting that his period of participation in the Anti-Terrorist Operation be calculated on preferential terms. However, his application was refused on the grounds that the special pension legislation required a specific number of calendar years of service rather than years of service calculated on preferential terms.

The police officer considered the refusal unlawful and challenged it in court. The court of first instance ruled in favour of the claimant. However, the appellate court subsequently overturned the judgment of the court of first instance.

The Supreme Court’s judgment became decisive in the case, as the Court ultimately upheld the claimant’s position. The Supreme Court reasoned that although special pension legislation establishes requirements concerning a specific number of calendar years of service, Resolution No. 393 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine provides for a preferential calculation under which one month of service in the ATO zone may be counted as three months of service.

The Court concluded that the absence of the required number of calendar years of service should not in itself prevent the granting of a pension where the claimant has sufficient preferential service calculated in accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers’ resolution.

This conclusion is also supported by the purpose of Resolution No. 393 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which is to provide detailed regulatory rules for determining entitlement to pensions for years of service, including the calculation of particular periods of service on preferential terms.