Confirmation of Employment Record for Pension: Supreme Court Practice in Ukraine
The issue of including periods of employment in the insurance record remains one of the most common sources of pension disputes in Ukraine. Even entries in an employment record book do not always guarantee that the relevant period of employment 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 formulated 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 a person’s employment history for pension purposes. At the same time, entries in the employment record book are not conclusive in all circumstances. If the pension authority has reasonable doubts as to their authenticity or accuracy, it has the right to initiate verification and request additional evidence. This does not concern mere formal errors, but rather situations where the entries contradict objective information, including information concerning the period during which the employer actually existed and operated.
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 enterprise 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 employee’s recorded dismissal date. Such a discrepancy does not in itself constitute an automatic ground for refusing to include the relevant period in the insurance record, but it provides grounds for a more thorough verification of the reliability of the employment records.
The Supreme Court also specifically addressed the issue of the company 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, it may indicate inaccuracies in employment records and justify additional verification of such information, including the period during which the claimant worked for the relevant enterprise.
Personalized insurance records are also of significant importance. For periods following the introduction of this system, the insurance record is determined primarily on the basis of information concerning the payment of insurance contributions. At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasized that an employee cannot be held responsible for the employer’s actions or omissions concerning 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 the relevant period included in their insurance record if the work was actually performed. In this pension dispute, the Supreme Court also noted that extracts from personal accounts, payroll records, and other documents concerning accrued and paid wages, which constitute evidence of the employer’s monthly payment of insurance contributions during the relevant period of employment, may also serve as information confirming or disproving suspicions 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, the law permits the use of other evidence. Such evidence may include primary accounting documents, employment orders, archival certificates, salary records and, where an enterprise has been liquidated, even witness testimony. This approach is intended to ensure 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, 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, consistency with EDRPOU data, information from personalized insurance records, and the availability of supporting documents. In pension disputes, this judgment reinforces the position that each case requires an individual assessment and that a purely formal approach should not prevail over the substance of the right to social protection.
