List No. 1 Preferential Pension: Can an Old-Age Pension Be Granted Again at Age 60?
In the field of social protection, particularly compulsory state pension insurance, disputes frequently arise concerning the granting, recalculation, and payment of pensions. One notable example is administrative case No. 160/17075/24, considered by the Supreme Court in cassation proceedings No. K/990/12866/25. This case concerns a preferential old-age pension for persons who worked under harmful working conditions covered by List No. 1 and highlights key issues such as preferential service record, periods of study, compulsory military service, workplace certification, and the application of Laws No. 1058-IV and No. 1788-XII.
Since 8 May 2014, the claimant had been receiving a preferential old-age pension under List No. 1 pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Final Provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance” (Law No. 1058-IV) and paragraph “b” of Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision” (Law No. 1788-XII). Upon reaching the age of 60 in 2024, he applied to the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Dnipropetrovsk Region (PFU) for the re-granting of an old-age pension. The claimant requested the application of the average salary indicator in Ukraine, from which insurance contributions had been paid for 2021–2023, in the amount of UAH 13,559.41. In addition, he sought the inclusion of certain periods in his preferential service record: his studies from 1979 to 1983, compulsory military service from 1983 to 1985, and several periods of employment from 2008 to 2022 during which there had been interruptions in workplace certification.
The PFU refused to grant the pension again, arguing that the claimant was already receiving an old-age pension on preferential terms and that the legislation did not provide for a transfer from one type of pension to the same type of pension. The disputed periods were also excluded from his preferential service record due to the absence of workplace certification. Considering these actions unlawful, the claimant filed a lawsuit seeking to have the PFU’s inaction declared unlawful, to require a pension recalculation from 2014, and to have a new pension granted using the current average salary indicator.
Decision of the Court of First Instance
By its judgment of 9 September 2024, the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court partially upheld the claim. The court declared the PFU’s refusal to recalculate the pension unlawful and ordered the inclusion in the preferential service record under List No. 1 of the periods of study, compulsory military service, and the disputed periods of employment, referring to Article 8 of the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Members of Their Families” and Article 56 of Law No. 1788-XII. The pension was to be recalculated from the date it was originally granted – 8 May 2014. At the same time, the court refused to grant the pension again using the average salary indicator for 2021–2023 because the claimant was already receiving an old-age pension under Law No. 1058-IV.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
By its judgment of 28 February 2025, the Third Administrative Court of Appeal fully upheld the claimant’s appeal. Having overturned the part of the first-instance judgment concerning the refusal to grant the pension again, the appellate court ordered the PFU to grant and pay an old-age pension from 8 May 2024 using the average salary indicator for 2021–2023. The court reasoned that a preferential pension under List No. 1 was separate from a general old-age pension, referring to the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 17 June 2021 in case No. 336/7438/16-а.
Cassation Appeal and the Supreme Court’s Decision
The PFU filed a cassation appeal, arguing that a preferential pension under List No. 1 is not a separate type of pension but merely an old-age pension granted on preferential terms and, therefore, cannot be granted again. In its judgment of 7 August 2025, the Supreme Court, sitting as a panel of judges of the Administrative Court of Cassation (A. I. Rybachuk, A. Yu. Buchyk, and N. V. Kovalenko), partially upheld the cassation appeal. The Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the appellate court and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.
The key legal conclusion was based on a departure from previous case law. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment of 22 October 2024 in case No. 300/5450/23, the panel stated that Article 13 of Law No. 1788-XII does not establish a separate type of pension but merely provides for a reduced retirement age for persons covered by List No. 1. Such a pension is granted and paid under Law No. 1058-IV. Therefore, it cannot be granted again using a new average salary indicator. Regarding the inclusion of disputed periods in the preferential service record, the Supreme Court upheld the position of the court of first instance, emphasizing the need to protect citizens’ social rights even where workplace certification had not been carried out due to the employer’s fault.
This Supreme Court judgment is important for ensuring consistency in pension case law. It confirms that a preferential pension under List No. 1 is a form of old-age pension rather than a separate type of pension, which excludes the possibility of granting it again upon reaching the general retirement age. At the same time, the judgment protects the right to have qualifying periods included in the preferential service record, including periods of study and compulsory military service, in accordance with Ukrainian law.
In the context of Laws No. 1058-IV and No. 1788-XII, case No. 160/17075/24 demonstrates the balance between the interests of the state and the protection of citizens’ pension rights. The reversal of the appellate court’s judgment and the reinstatement of the first-instance judgment emphasize the importance of applying current legislation and the latest Supreme Court case law. Persons facing similar pension disputes should consider seeking judicial protection of their social rights while taking into account the Supreme Court’s current legal position.
