How to Confirm Ukrainian Preferential Employment Record for a Pension Abroad

Many Ukrainians are currently living abroad, even though some of them spent most or all of their working lives in Ukraine. Since Ukraine has concluded international agreements on pension provision with a number of other countries, Ukrainians may be able to obtain a pension abroad, including a preferential pension, taking into account periods of employment acquired in Ukraine. For this purpose, a person generally applies to the pension authority of the foreign country, which sends a request to the Pension Fund of Ukraine to confirm the relevant employment record. Once the necessary confirmation is received, the foreign pension authority can proceed with the pension application. The procedure may appear straightforward, but in practice it can be considerably more complicated, particularly when preferential employment record is involved.

When the Pension Fund of Ukraine receives a request to confirm a person’s preferential employment record acquired in Ukraine, it may refuse to confirm certain periods, referring to the absence of documents proving the preferential nature of the employment. As a result, the person may have to apply independently to the Pension Fund for confirmation of the relevant periods of employment. However, even in such cases, the pension authorities may refuse to confirm the employment record because various certificates or other supporting documents have not been provided.

Mr Remeniuk approached us after the Pension Fund refused to confirm part of his preferential employment record. In particular, the Pension Fund did not recognise his period of study at a vocational educational institution, his period of compulsory military service in the Soviet Army, and three periods of employment due to the absence of workplace certification.

After analysing the Pension Fund’s refusal and our client’s documents, we decided to challenge the decision in court. Our legal position was based on the following arguments.

First, an analysis of the applicable legislation shows that a period of study at a vocational educational institution may be included in the graduate’s preferential employment record if the interval between graduation and commencing employment in the acquired occupation does not exceed three months.

According to Mr Remeniuk’s documents, within three months after completing his studies, he was employed in an occupation involving particularly harmful and particularly difficult working conditions covered by List No. 1, which entitles employees to an old-age pension on preferential terms. Therefore, there were legal grounds for including his period of vocational education in his preferential employment record.

Second, under Ukrainian legislation, a period of compulsory military service may be included in the employment record giving entitlement to an old-age pension on preferential terms if, at the time of conscription, the person was employed in an occupation that entitled them to such a preferential pension.

At the time Mr Remeniuk was called up for compulsory military service, he was employed as an “underground electrical fitter”, an occupation that entitled him to an old-age pension on preferential terms under List No. 1. Therefore, there were sufficient grounds for including his period of compulsory military service in his preferential employment record under List No. 1.

Third, we argued that timely workplace certification based on working conditions is an important measure of social protection for employees. Such certification is intended to ensure the effective exercise of employees’ rights to safe and healthy working conditions, benefits and compensation for employment under harmful conditions, as well as preferential pension provision. At the same time, an employee engaged in harmful and difficult working conditions cannot be held responsible for the employer’s failure to conduct workplace certification or for conducting it late. Such circumstances cannot deprive an employee of the constitutional right to social protection, including the right to an old-age pension on preferential terms.

Accordingly, the absence of information concerning workplace certification could not, by itself, constitute sufficient grounds for refusing to include the relevant periods of Mr Remeniuk’s employment in his preferential employment record. Therefore, the three disputed periods of employment also had to be recognised for preferential pension purposes.

All of our arguments were supported by relevant case law of the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the court of first instance dismissed the claim and, in our view, failed to provide sufficient legal reasoning for its decision. We therefore filed an appeal.

The appellate court overturned the judgment of the court of first instance and fully upheld our claims. In particular, the appellate court annulled the commission’s decision insofar as it refused to confirm the disputed periods of employment and ordered the Pension Fund to adopt a decision confirming Mr Remeniuk’s preferential employment record.

The Pension Fund complied with the court judgment, and Mr Remeniuk was subsequently able to obtain his pension abroad.

The court judgment is available at the following link: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/112670344.