Long-Service Pension for Artists in Ukraine: Court Challenge Against Pension Fund Refusal

The Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal in Lviv upheld the judgment of the court of first instance in case No. 380/21402/24, which partially granted a claim prepared by our lawyer challenging the refusal to grant a long-service pension to a People’s Artist of Ukraine.

The court confirmed that the Pension Fund’s refusal to grant a pension to an artist with 30 years of professional creative service was unlawful and ordered the disputed preferential service to be taken into account.

Our client is a highest-category instrumental soloist who worked for more than 30 years at the National House of Organ and Chamber Music of Ukraine and holds the honorary title of People’s Artist of Ukraine.

In June 2024, he applied to the Pension Fund for a long-service pension as an artist employed in theatrical, concert and other entertainment institutions, enterprises and artistic groups, based on the required period of creative professional service established by the relevant legislation and the lists approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. However, the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Lviv Region refused to grant the pension, citing:

• allegedly incorrect entries in the employment record book;
• alleged inconsistencies in employment certificates;
• the absence of information concerning the reorganisation of the artistic institution;
• a requirement to provide additional clarifying certificates that the claimant was not legally required to submit.

These grounds are a typical example of overly formalistic refusals that the Pension Fund may apply in pension cases involving creative professionals.

Our lawyer prepared a comprehensive administrative claim and demonstrated before the court that:

1. The employment record book is the primary document confirming employment history.

The Pension Fund did not provide any evidence showing that the relevant entries were unreliable. Therefore, those periods had to be taken into account.

2. An employee is not responsible for deficiencies in documents maintained by the employer.

This principle is consistently reflected in the case law of the Supreme Court. Formal deficiencies in records created and maintained by the employer should not be attributed to the artist.

3. The preferential creative service was fully confirmed.

The position of highest-category instrumental soloist is included in the relevant list of artistic positions that may give entitlement to a long-service pension, subject to satisfaction of the statutory requirements.

4. The Pension Fund may not demand documents that are objectively unnecessary or impossible to obtain.

For example, it should not require separate certificates concerning the reorganisation of artistic groups where the employment record book already contains continuous and consistent employment entries.

The lawyer substantiated each disputed period of employment in detail, submitted additional certificates issued by the institution, demonstrated the legal validity of those documents, and relied on current Supreme Court case law.

The appellate court fully agreed with the legal position presented by the ARES lawyer and concluded that:

• the Pension Fund acted unreasonably and formalistically;
• the refusal to count the claimant’s creative professional service was unlawful;
• deficiencies in documents attributable to the employer cannot adversely affect a person’s pension rights;
• the Pension Fund is required to reconsider the pension application in light of the court’s findings.

The judgment of the appellate court entered into legal force.

The Pension Fund often refuses different types of pension applications on formal grounds without adequately examining the actual circumstances of the claimant’s employment. Our task is to demonstrate before the court that the relevant service is properly confirmed by the available evidence and that the applicable law protects the individual’s pension rights.

This case provides another example demonstrating that:

• employment periods may be counted despite formal objections raised by the Pension Fund;
• a properly developed legal strategy and professional representation can significantly affect the outcome of a pension dispute;
• administrative courts provide an effective mechanism for protecting pension rights where the Pension Fund adopts an unlawful decision.

Our team can:

• analyse your employment record book;
• identify and obtain the documents actually required to confirm your service;
• challenge an unlawful refusal by the Pension Fund to grant or recalculate a pension;
• seek recognition of disputed employment periods and protection of your pension rights through court proceedings.

Contact us if you need professional legal assistance in protecting your pension rights.