Recognition of Insurance Record for Time Spent in Cuba
RECOGNITION OF EMPLOYMENT RECORD FOR TIME SPENT IN CUBA
We are regularly contacted by women who, during the Soviet period, accompanied their military husbands to their places of service, often abroad, and for years had no realistic opportunity to obtain official employment. Decades later, when applying for a pension, they discover that these periods have been excluded from their insurance record. The Pension Fund of Ukraine (PFU) refuses to recognize them, usually claiming that the supporting certificate does not comply with the form set out in Appendix 4.
This exact issue was considered by the Ivano-Frankivsk District Administrative Court in case No. 300/9380/25, decided on 19 February 2026. The judgment is a useful example of how the Pension Fund’s formalistic approach can be overturned through proper legal analysis.
The claimant applied for an old-age pension in July 2025. The pension was granted, but she later discovered that two years had not been included in her insurance record: the period from 1 May 1990 to 30 April 1992. During that time, she lived with her husband, a serviceman, in the Republic of Cuba, where he was assigned on an overseas military posting and where she had no opportunity to work in her profession.
In November 2025, she applied for a pension recalculation and submitted Certificate No. 297 dated 30 April 1992, issued by the military unit. The Pension Fund refused, stating that the certificate did not comply with Appendix 4 to Procedure No. 637. The refusal contained no explanation of the alleged defect and merely referred to non-compliance with statutory requirements.
The court identified a fundamental legal problem with that position: Procedure No. 637, approved by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution dated 12 August 1993, entered into force only after the certificate had already been issued. Requiring a document dated 1992 to comply with a form introduced in 1993 is legally unreasonable.
Certificate No. 297 of 30 April 1992, signed by the commander of the military unit, confirmed a specific fact: from May 1990 to April 1992, the claimant accompanied her husband during his overseas military assignment. Additional documents from the same military unit confirmed that her husband had been sent to serve in the Republic of Cuba and that she had left her employment in order to relocate to his place of service. Taken together, these documents clearly established both her residence with her husband and the absence of any realistic employment opportunity.
The right to include such a period in the insurance record is expressly provided by law. Article 18(3) of the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Members of Their Families” provides that the period during which a serviceman’s spouse lived with him in an area where she had no opportunity to work in her profession must be included in her general insurance record, subject to a maximum of ten years.
A similar rule is contained in Article 56(3)(h) of the Law of Ukraine “On Pension Provision”. It applies to the spouses of officers, warrant officers, midshipmen, and extended-service military personnel.
The procedure for confirming such periods is set out in paragraph 13 of Procedure No. 637. It provides that the relevant period may be confirmed by certificates issued by commanders of military units or territorial recruitment and social support centres. For certificates relating to periods before 1 January 2004, confirmation may be based on the serviceman’s personal file and other supporting documents.
The key wording is “other documents confirming the relevant period.” The law does not require proof in one exclusive form. It requires reliable confirmation of the underlying facts.
The Ivano-Frankivsk District Administrative Court fully upheld the claim. The Pension Fund’s refusal was declared unlawful and annulled. The Main Department of the Pension Fund in Kyiv Region was ordered to recalculate the pension from the original award date of 8 April 2025, including the entire disputed period from 1 May 1990 to 30 April 1992 in the claimant’s insurance record.
The court expressly found that Certificate No. 297 of 30 April 1992 complied with the applicable legal requirements and confirmed that the claimant had accompanied her military husband in circumstances where employment was unavailable. Requiring compliance with a form that did not exist when the certificate was issued was therefore unfounded.
In our practice, we repeatedly encounter the same approach: the Pension Fund refuses recognition of insurance record because a certificate allegedly does not comply with Appendix 4, without explaining what is actually wrong with the document. Such refusals often rely on the assumption that the applicant will not challenge the decision.
However, where a military unit certificate contains the date of issue, the commander’s signature, the claimant’s identifying details, and confirmation of an overseas military assignment in circumstances where employment was unavailable, it may be sufficient to prove the relevant period. This is particularly true where the certificate was issued before 1993, when Procedure No. 637 had not yet been adopted.
If your client is the spouse of a serviceman who accompanied her husband to Cuba, another former socialist country, or a military garrison where no suitable employment was available, this period can and should be defended. A military unit certificate, together with documents confirming the husband’s service, may constitute sufficient evidence before the court.
