Pension Recalculation and Confirmation of Employment Record Through Court in Ukraine
The issue of pension provision in Ukraine has always been closely connected with the need to confirm the insurance record, which is one of the key conditions for granting an old-age pension. This applies not only to standard employment situations but also to specific occupations, including livestock workers whose duties involved caring for farm animals and bees. Even beekeeper assistants, by the nature of their work, performed employment duties that should be properly included in their insurance record, and the correct documentation of such periods often becomes the subject of court disputes.
In a typical situation, such as the one considered in case No. 440/11752/25, a person who worked as a beekeeper at the Kremenchutskyi State Farm applied to the Pension Fund of Ukraine for a pension recalculation taking into account the relevant periods of employment, including periods related to livestock farming. However, the Pension Fund refused to recalculate the pension, citing discrepancies in the documents and claiming that the entries in the employment record book contained errors in the individual’s personal details and errors in the company seal, while the archival certificate submitted to confirm the employment record also contained inaccuracies. In particular, the Pension Fund argued that the entries in the employment record book and the archival documents could not be accepted as proper evidence for the inclusion of the relevant periods in the insurance record because they did not comply with the current requirements for confirming employment history and contained discrepancies.
This approach by the Pension Fund effectively resulted in the deprivation of the person’s right to a pension recalculation, which became the basis for filing an administrative claim with the court. In the claim, the pensioner insisted that the employment record book is the primary document confirming periods of employment and that responsibility for the accuracy of its maintenance cannot be imposed on the employee where the entries were made by the employer or authorized officials. The claimant also argued that the archival certificate from the place of employment confirmed the relevant periods of employment at the Kremenchutskyi State Farm and, despite certain inaccuracies, should be taken into account when determining the insurance record.
As judicial practice demonstrates, corrections or errors in an employment record book cannot automatically deprive a person of the right to a pension if the employment was actually performed and the relevant documents confirm the existence of such periods.
In case No. 440/11752/25, when examining the circumstances of the case, the court also emphasized the importance of proper and complete confirmation of the person’s employment record, including periods of employment at the Kremenchutskyi State Farm as a livestock worker and beekeeper assistant. The court found that an archival certificate may be accepted as evidence provided that it was duly issued by a competent authority and confirms the fact of actual employment at the enterprise. Even if an archival certificate contains certain inaccuracies, courts follow the principle that an employment record should not be questioned merely on formal grounds, but should instead be assessed in light of the overall circumstances and other supporting documents confirming the person’s employment.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the Pension Fund’s refusal to recalculate the pension was unsubstantiated, as the claimant had provided sufficient documents and evidence confirming the relevant periods of employment at the enterprise, and inaccuracies in individual entries could not serve as grounds for refusing to recalculate the pension or include the relevant periods in the insurance record. This decision reflects the general trend in judicial practice requiring a comprehensive approach to the assessment of evidence rather than the formal rejection of documents, including employment record books and archival certificates confirming employment.
Thus, this case illustrates that the right to an old-age pension and pension recalculation is subject to legal protection where a person can provide appropriate documents confirming their employment record, even when such documents contain technical errors or discrepancies. Court decisions in recent years clearly indicate that the Pension Fund cannot refuse to recalculate a pension solely on the basis of formal deficiencies in documents where the person actually performed the relevant employment duties and this is confirmed by available evidence of employment.
