Preferential Pension Under List No. 1 for a Kharkiv Metro Train Driver

Serhii Anatoliiovych Solodkyi, an experienced electric train driver with the Kharkiv Metro, contacted our law firm for legal assistance with obtaining an old-age pension on preferential terms under List No. 1. Throughout his employment, Mr Solodkyi worked full-time underground as an electric train driver, which, under the applicable legislation, entitled him to a preferential pension.

Our lawyers carefully prepared the necessary documents to confirm that the client had performed his employment duties under conditions entitling him to preferential pension benefits. An application for a preferential pension was submitted to the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine (PFU) in Kharkiv Region.

When the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Kharkiv Region refused to grant Mr Solodkyi a pension on preferential terms, the Pension Center team initiated court proceedings to challenge the decision.

The Pension Fund's main argument was that Mr Solodkyi had failed to provide a so-called “preferential employment certificate”, which is one of the documents used to confirm entitlement to a preferential pension. However, our lawyers relied on several important arguments:

1. We provided the court with a copy of the client's employment record book, which clearly indicated that he had worked as an electric train driver with the Kharkiv Metro. This information confirmed his employment in a position qualifying for preferential employment record.

2. Absence of a statutory requirement for a “preferential employment certificate”: our lawyers argued that the legislation did not establish an absolute requirement to provide such a certificate in order to obtain a preferential pension. We demonstrated that the employment record book and other supporting documents provided by the client constituted sufficient evidence of the relevant employment periods and working conditions.

3. Protection of the client's pension rights: we emphasised that refusing to grant the pension violated our client's right to proper pension provision and social protection guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and other applicable legislation.

As a result, the court of first instance partially upheld our claim, overturned the Pension Fund's decision and ordered the pension authority to reconsider Serhii Solodkyi's application. However, the court did not order the Pension Fund to include the disputed period in his preferential employment record or to grant the pension, leaving the main issue unresolved.

Understanding that the judgment of the court of first instance did not provide full protection of our client's rights, we lodged an appeal based on the following arguments:

1. Incorrect interpretation of documentary requirements. In our appeal, we again emphasised that the Pension Fund's requirement for a mandatory “preferential employment certificate” was unlawful. We demonstrated that all documents necessary to confirm the client's preferential employment record had been provided and complied with the applicable legal requirements.

2. Lack of sufficient grounds for the Pension Fund's decision. We drew the appellate court's attention to the fact that the Pension Fund's refusal was based on formal grounds and failed to take into account the actual circumstances of the case, including Mr Solodkyi's many years of employment under conditions entitling him to a preferential pension.

3. Violation of the right to social protection. We once again emphasised that the refusal to grant a pension violated Serhii Solodkyi's constitutional rights to social protection and pension provision.

4. Relevant court practice. In support of our position, we also referred to court practice in similar cases in which courts had found Pension Fund refusals unlawful and ordered the pension authorities to grant preferential pensions.

After considering all the arguments and evidence presented, the appellate court agreed with our position and ordered the Pension Fund to include the relevant period in Mr Solodkyi's preferential employment record and grant him a preferential pension.

This judgment represented a final victory in the case and enabled our client to obtain the pension to which he was legally entitled. The case also demonstrates the importance of qualified legal assistance in disputes concerning preferential pension entitlement.

The full text of the appellate court judgment is available at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/120633334.