Disability Pension for Prosecutors in Ukraine
For certain categories of persons, Ukrainian legislation provides special conditions for pension benefits. This applies, in particular, to civil servants, prosecutors, judges, members of parliament, employees in education and healthcare, miners and other categories of workers. These conditions differ from the general retirement rules and may include various benefits, such as a reduced retirement age, different service requirements and other preferential conditions.
This article discusses disability pensions for prosecutors in Ukraine.
The relevant rules are currently established by the Law of Ukraine No. 1697-VII “On the Prosecutor’s Office”. In particular, prosecutors with Group I or Group II disabilities may qualify for a disability pension provided that they have at least 10 years of service in the prosecution authorities.
At first glance, this rule may appear relatively straightforward. In practice, however, applicants may encounter difficulties. The Pension Fund of Ukraine has refused to grant such pensions to serving prosecutors, referring to paragraph 5 of the Final Provisions of Law of Ukraine No. 213-VIII “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding Pension Provision.” According to this position, from 1 June 2015, the special pension provisions previously regulated by the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office” were abolished.
However, refusals based on these grounds may be unlawful, as confirmed by Ukrainian court practice. Of particular interest is the Supreme Court decision of 25 August 2021 in case No. 751/2403/17, in which a similar case was remitted for a new hearing.
The case concerned the refusal to grant a prosecutor a disability pension based on Law No. 213-VIII, as well as the failure to include a period of employment as a senior assistant prosecutor in the relevant prosecutorial service record.
The courts of first instance and appeal upheld the claimant’s demands. However, the Supreme Court did not fully agree with the conclusions of the lower courts and made several important findings.
First. The principal legislation governing pension provision for prosecutors was and remains the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office”: until 15 July 2015, Law No. 1789-XII applied, while from 15 July 2015, the applicable legislation has been Law No. 1697-VII.
Paragraph 5 of the Final Provisions of Law No. 213-VIII concerned the abolition of pension provisions regulated by Law of Ukraine No. 1789-XII “On the Prosecutor’s Office.” However, Law No. 1697-VII entered into force on 15 July 2015 and currently governs the pension rights of prosecutors.
Therefore, a refusal to grant a pension based on Law No. 213-VIII may be unlawful where the relevant legal relationship arose after Law No. 1697-VII entered into force. Ukrainian legislation therefore continues to provide a legal basis for granting disability pensions to prosecutors, subject to the statutory requirements.
Second. The Supreme Court distinguished between two different concepts: “length of service entitling a person to a pension” and “length of service in prosecutorial positions.” When considering these concepts, the Court reached the following conclusions:
- the list of prosecutorial positions differs from the list of positions that may be included in the length of service entitling a person to a pension;
- periods of employment in prosecutorial positions are included in the length of service that gives a person the right to a pension.
Accordingly, employment as a senior assistant prosecutor may be included in the length of service entitling a person to a pension. However, this does not automatically mean that such employment can be included in the length of service specifically accumulated in prosecutorial positions, since the list of such positions is determined by law.
The Supreme Court found that the lower courts had failed to properly determine the specific periods of the claimant’s employment that could be included in the length of service in prosecutorial positions. Consequently, it was impossible to reliably establish whether the claimant had acquired the right to a disability pension. This became the basis for remitting the case for a new hearing.
The Supreme Court decision in case No. 751/2403/17 is available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.
