Recognition of Employment in Russia for Pension Purposes in Ukraine

Following Ukraine’s withdrawal from a number of international agreements on pension provision concluded within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), disputes have increasingly arisen concerning the refusal to include periods of employment in the Russian Federation in the insurance record of Ukrainian citizens. Referring to the termination of the Agreement on Guarantees of the Rights of Citizens of the CIS Member States in the Field of Pension Provision dated 13 March 1992, the Pension Fund of Ukraine often refuses to recognise such periods of employment after 31 December 1991. At the same time, many individuals worked in the Russian Federation while the relevant international agreements guaranteeing the mutual recognition of employment records were still in force. This creates a conflict between the principle of legal certainty and the new political and legal realities, requiring appropriate legal interpretation and judicial protection of citizens’ pension rights.

A similar situation occurred in the case of Mr Zaporozhets, who applied to the pension authority for an old-age pension but was refused due to an allegedly insufficient insurance record. The refusal resulted from the exclusion of his period of employment in the Russian Federation. The Pension Fund argued that, as of 19 June 2023, the Agreement on Guarantees of the Rights of Citizens of the CIS Member States in the Field of Pension Provision dated 13 March 1992 had ceased to apply to Ukraine and, consequently, only employment periods up to 31 December 1991 could be recognised. In our view, such grounds for excluding employment periods from the insurance record were unlawful. Therefore, we prepared and filed a court claim with the appropriate legal arguments.

During Mr Zaporozhets’ employment in the Russian Federation in the 1990s, several international agreements were in force that expressly provided for the recognition of employment records acquired in the territory of any of the participating states. These included the Agreement on Guarantees of the Rights of Citizens of the CIS Member States dated 13 March 1992, the Agreement between the Governments of Ukraine and the Russian Federation on Employment and Social Protection of Citizens dated 14 January 1993, and the Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Labour Migration and Social Protection of Migrant Workers dated 15 April 1994. These agreements provided a legal framework and ensured legal certainty for individuals who worked outside their home country.

Therefore, Mr Zaporozhets’ employment in the Russian Federation during the period when these agreements were in force cannot simply be “cancelled” retroactively. Pursuant to Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine, laws and other regulatory acts do not have retroactive effect. Accordingly, the termination of international agreements should not deprive individuals of rights lawfully acquired while those agreements were in force. At the time of Mr Zaporozhets’ employment, there were legal grounds for recognising the relevant periods of service. Therefore, the Pension Fund’s refusal was not only legally unfounded but also contrary to the principle of legitimate expectations and citizens’ trust in the state.

Thus, from a legal perspective, periods of employment of Ukrainian citizens in the Russian Federation before the termination of the relevant international agreements should be taken into account when calculating their insurance record. Otherwise, individuals may effectively be deprived of lawfully acquired pension rights, which would be inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine and international standards of social protection.

The court of first instance granted our claim. In particular, it annulled the decision refusing to grant the pension, ordered the Pension Fund to include the period of employment in the Russian Federation in the claimant’s insurance record, and required the pension authority to reconsider his application for a pension.

The Pension Fund disagreed with the judgment and filed an appeal. The appellate court once again upheld our legal arguments and left the judgment of the court of first instance unchanged. Shortly thereafter, the pension authority complied with the court judgment, granted the pension and paid the pension arrears accrued during the court proceedings.

The court decisions are available at the following links:

Court of First Instance – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127126881 ;

Court of Appeal – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129974488 .