Preferential Pension Under List No. 1 for a Metro Train Driver: Successful Court Case
Preferential pension provision for employees engaged in work involving particularly difficult and hazardous working conditions is an important instrument of social protection. However, in practice, obtaining such a pension often involves difficulties, including refusals by the Pension Fund due to disputes concerning confirmation of the required employment record or compliance of the working conditions with statutory requirements. In such cases, taking the matter to court may be an effective way to protect one's rights and obtain the pension benefits to which a person is legally entitled.
Mr Tretiakov contacted our law firm regarding the granting of a preferential pension under List No. 1. Since 2003, he had worked as an electric train driver in the Kharkiv Metro. In 2016, Mr Tretiakov's position was excluded from List No. 1, as a result of which his employer refused to issue him a certificate confirming his preferential employment record. Our client continued working in this position and, in 2023, reached the applicable retirement age of 50.
Having analysed the documents provided by the client, our lawyers decided to take the following steps to protect his interests:
First, to obtain from the employer all documents confirming Mr Tretiakov's employment as a train driver, as well as documents describing the conditions of his workplace.
Second, to obtain certificates and supporting documents from educational institutions and archives concerning periods of Mr Tretiakov's employment and education for which his existing documents contained inaccuracies or for which information was missing.
Third, after compiling the complete set of documents, to submit an application to the Pension Fund of Ukraine for a preferential pension under List No. 1, together with all the supporting documents collected.
The Pension Fund of Ukraine refused to grant Mr Tretiakov a pension, referring to the absence of a special certificate confirming his preferential employment record, which his employer had refused to issue.
Having analysed the Pension Fund's refusal, we concluded that it was unlawful and decided to file an administrative claim with the court on behalf of our client.
Our legal position was based on the following arguments:
1) Inclusion of the occupation in List No. 1
The claimant worked as an electric train driver in the metro system, an occupation which, under List No. 1, entitled employees to an old-age pension on preferential terms provided they had the required qualifying employment record. This work was classified as being performed under particularly hazardous working conditions.
2) Workplace certification
Workplace assessments were conducted in 1994, 1997 and 1999. Their results confirmed that the claimant's work involved particularly hazardous working conditions, which was also documented in the employer's relevant orders.
3) No changes in the nature of the work
The claimant's working conditions had not changed since the most recent workplace assessment, as confirmed by workplace condition records and measurements of occupational factors.
4) Benefits and compensation
The claimant received compensation for hazardous working conditions, including additional days of annual leave and salary supplements. This provided further evidence that he performed work corresponding to the criteria of List No. 1.
5) Court practice
We drew the court's attention to the legal position of the Supreme Court in similar disputes and emphasised that, under the applicable legislation, such conclusions must be taken into account by lower courts.
In its judgment in this case, the Kharkiv District Administrative Court established that the claimant had worked as an electric train driver in the Kharkiv Metro since 2003 on a full-time basis, as confirmed by his employment record book, a certificate issued by the employer and workplace condition records. Under List No. 1 approved by resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, this occupation entitled the claimant to an old-age pension on preferential terms.
The court took into account the results of workplace assessments conducted in 1994, 1997 and 1999, which confirmed that the claimant's work involved particularly hazardous working conditions. The fact that these conditions had not changed since the most recent assessment was confirmed by measurements of occupational factors.
The court noted that the defendants had failed to provide convincing evidence justifying their refusal to include the disputed period in the claimant's preferential employment record and to grant him a pension. The Pension Fund's decision refusing the pension was found to be unjustified because it failed to give proper consideration to the claimant's duly executed documents and the requirements of the applicable legislation.
The court concluded that the claimant was entitled to have the relevant period of employment included in his preferential employment record and to receive an old-age pension on preferential terms because his occupation and working conditions met the criteria established by List No. 1.
Accordingly, the court of first instance upheld our claims and ordered the Pension Fund to include Mr Tretiakov's period of employment as a train driver in his preferential employment record and to grant him a pension from the date of his original application.
Disagreeing with the judgment of the court of first instance, the Pension Fund filed an appeal. We continued representing our client before the appellate court and submitted a response to the appeal, setting out the legal grounds supporting the lawfulness of the first-instance judgment.
The appellate court dismissed the Pension Fund's appeal and confirmed that the judgment of the court of first instance was lawful and should remain unchanged.
We subsequently submitted the court judgments to the Pension Fund for enforcement. Within one month of the appellate court's decision, the pension authority granted Mr Tretiakov his pension and paid the pension arrears accumulated during the one-year period in which the case was being considered by the courts.
This case once again demonstrates the importance of continuing to defend one's legal rights even when a decision of a public authority may initially appear final. Ukrainian law provides mechanisms for protecting pension rights through the courts, while proper preparation of documents and legal arguments can be decisive. If you are experiencing difficulties obtaining a preferential pension or require professional legal assistance, the Pension Center is ready to help. Our lawyers have extensive experience in handling similar pension disputes and can provide comprehensive legal support, from collecting the necessary documents to representing your interests in court.
Do not postpone protecting your pension rights. Contact the Pension Center and receive professional legal assistance in obtaining the pension benefits to which you are legally entitled.
