Recognition of Employment Periods in Estonia for a Ukrainian Pension
RECOGNITION OF EMPLOYMENT PERIODS IN ESTONIA: HOW TO PROTECT YOUR PENSION RIGHTS
The recognition of employment periods completed in Estonia is one of the areas where the Pension Fund of Ukraine (PFU) frequently makes legal errors, leaving many people unable to obtain the pension benefits to which they are entitled. We regularly represent clients whose applications for an old-age pension under Article 26 of Law No. 1058-IV have been refused because employment performed in the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (Estonian SSR) during the Soviet period was not recognized as part of their insurance record.
An illustrative example is the judgment of the Vinnytsia District Administrative Court dated 22 September 2025 in case No. 120/4356/25. This decision demonstrates the correct interpretation of the applicable legislation and serves as valuable guidance for individuals facing similar pension disputes.
What happens in practice?
The typical scenario is straightforward. An individual applies to the Pension Fund for an old-age pension. The pension may initially be granted but later cancelled by the Pension Fund, which claims that employment performed in Estonia has not been confirmed by the required liaison form.
This is precisely what occurred in case No. 120/4356/25. The claimant was initially awarded a pension based on more than 34 years of insurance record. Several months later, however, the regional office of the Pension Fund revoked its own decision. Three periods of employment in enterprises located in the Estonian SSR between 1985 and 1992 were excluded from the calculation. As a result, the claimant's insurance record was reduced to 28 years, 2 months, and 15 days, while Article 26 of Law No. 1058 required at least 31 years of insurance record to qualify for an old-age pension in 2024.
Where does the Pension Fund make its mistake?
The Pension Fund argued that Article 6 of the Agreement between Ukraine and the Republic of Estonia on Social Security of 5 October 2010 governed the issue because a bilateral social security treaty exists between the two countries.
This interpretation is fundamentally incorrect. The 2010 bilateral agreement regulates insurance periods accumulated after both countries became independent states. It does not apply to employment performed in the Estonian SSR while Estonia formed part of the Soviet Union.
Employment completed in the Estonian SSR before independence is governed by an entirely different legal instrument—the Agreement on Guarantees of the Rights of Citizens of the CIS Member States in the Field of Pension Provision, signed on 13 March 1992. Article 6(2) of that Agreement expressly provides that employment performed within any participating state, as well as employment performed in the territory of the former USSR before the Agreement entered into force, must be recognized when determining pension entitlement.
Important: The Agreement refers to employment performed throughout the territory of the former Soviet Union without distinguishing between successor states or requiring participation in subsequent bilateral treaties. Since the Estonian SSR formed part of the USSR, employment performed there before 1992 falls squarely within the scope of the 1992 Agreement. The court reached precisely this conclusion.
The role of Form EE/UA-205
Form EE/UA-205 is the official liaison document exchanged between the Pension Fund of Ukraine and the Estonian Social Insurance Board confirming insurance periods completed in Estonia. This is the document that the Pension Fund refers to as the "liaison form."
In case No. 120/4356/25, Form EE/UA-205 was received by the Pension Fund only on 16 July 2025, after court proceedings had already commenced. The court restored the procedural deadline for submitting this evidence, recognizing that the claimant had been objectively unable to obtain the document earlier. The form was admitted into evidence and considered when deciding the case.
This aspect is particularly important in practice. If the claimant has not yet received Form EE/UA-205, there is no reason to postpone legal action. Under Article 62 of the Law of Ukraine "On Pension Provision" and Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 637, the employment record book remains the principal evidence of employment history. Form EE/UA-205 serves as supplementary evidence, and Ukrainian courts generally allow it to be submitted later where there are valid reasons for the delay.
The court's decision
The court partially upheld the claim and ordered the Pension Fund to grant the claimant an old-age pension beginning on the day following the attainment of retirement age. All three disputed employment periods in the Estonian SSR were included in the claimant's insurance record.
The calculation was straightforward: an undisputed insurance record of 28 years plus more than six years of employment in the Estonian SSR resulted in more than 34 years of recognized insurance record, comfortably exceeding the statutory minimum of 31 years required for an old-age pension in 2024.
Practical conclusions for similar cases
Based on our experience handling these disputes, several legal principles deserve particular attention.
First, the 2010 bilateral agreement with Estonia and the 1992 CIS Agreement establish two entirely different legal regimes. Employment completed in the Estonian SSR before the dissolution of the Soviet Union is governed exclusively by the 1992 Agreement, making reliance on the 2010 bilateral treaty legally incorrect.
Second, the employment record book remains the principal evidence of employment. Entries confirming work performed in the Estonian SSR possess independent evidentiary value, and the temporary absence of Form EE/UA-205 cannot by itself justify refusal of pension entitlement, particularly where the request to the Estonian authorities remains pending.
Finally, if the Pension Fund has refused to recognize your employment history while Form EE/UA-205 is still being processed, you should not delay filing a court claim. The form may be submitted later, and judicial practice demonstrates that Ukrainian courts are generally prepared to restore procedural deadlines where the claimant had legitimate reasons for not obtaining the document earlier.
