How to Confirm Pensionable Service in Ukraine: Employment Record Book and Supreme Court Practice
The inclusion of periods of employment in the insurance record remains one of the most common sources of pension disputes in Ukraine. Even the existence of entries in an employment record book does not always guarantee that the relevant period of service will be taken into account when an old-age pension is granted. In its judgment of 28 January 2025 in case No. 300/8132/23, the Supreme Court of Ukraine established important guidelines regarding the assessment of the reliability of employment record book entries and the role of other evidence.
First of all, the Court reaffirmed the established position that the employment record book is the primary document confirming employment history for pension purposes. At the same time, the entries contained in it are not absolute or conclusive. If the pension authority has reasonable doubts regarding their authenticity or accuracy, it may initiate verification and request additional evidence. This does not concern minor formal errors, but rather situations where the entries contradict objective information, including data concerning the period during which the employer actually existed as a legal entity.
A key issue in the pension dispute under consideration was that the period of employment indicated in the employment record book partially extended beyond the period during which the employer existed as a legal entity. Data from the Unified State Register of Enterprises and Organizations of Ukraine (EDRPOU) indicated that the employer had been liquidated before the date on which the employee was recorded as having been dismissed. Such a discrepancy does not in itself constitute an automatic ground for refusing to include the relevant period in the insurance record, but it does justify a more detailed verification of the reliability of the employment records.
The Supreme Court also specifically addressed the issue of the employer’s official seal. The absence of an EDRPOU code on a company seal after 2004 cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient grounds for excluding a period of employment from the insurance record. However, when considered together with other circumstances, this may indicate inaccuracies in employment documentation and justify additional verification of the relevant information, including the period during which the claimant allegedly worked for the enterprise.
Personalised social insurance records are also of considerable importance. For periods following the introduction of the personalised record-keeping system, insurance periods are determined primarily on the basis of information concerning the payment of social insurance contributions. At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasised that an employee cannot be held responsible for the employer’s actions or omissions regarding the calculation and payment of insurance contributions. The mere fact that contributions were not paid cannot automatically deprive a person of the right to have a period included in the insurance record if the employment was actually performed.
In this pension dispute, the Supreme Court further noted that extracts from personal accounts, payroll records, and other documents concerning accrued and paid wages, which may demonstrate the employer’s monthly payment of insurance contributions during the relevant period of employment, can also serve as evidence confirming or disproving doubts regarding the reliability of an entry made in the employment record book.
Based on the judgment under consideration, where doubts arise concerning entries in an employment record book, Ukrainian law permits the use of additional evidence to confirm periods of employment. Such evidence may include primary accounting documents, employment orders, archival certificates, payroll records and, in cases where an enterprise has been liquidated, even witness testimony. This approach is intended to maintain a balance between the principle of legal certainty and an individual’s right to an old-age pension.
Thus, the Supreme Court’s judgment demonstrates a balanced approach: the employment record book remains a key piece of evidence for confirming pensionable service, but its entries must be assessed in the context of all relevant circumstances. For the inclusion of a period of employment in the insurance record, not only formal details are important, but also the actual existence of the employment relationship, the consistency of the information with EDRPOU data, personalised social insurance records, and the availability of supporting documents. In pension disputes, this judgment reinforces the principle that each case requires an individual assessment and that a purely formalistic approach should not prevail over the substance of a person’s right to social protection.
