How to Challenge a Pension Fund Refusal and Obtain an Old-Age Pension in Ukraine

One of the most common mistakes is to treat a refusal issued by the Pension Fund of Ukraine as a final decision. In reality:

• a decision of the Pension Fund can and should be challenged if it is based on formal or questionable grounds;
• courts frequently protect individuals where their right to social security has been violated.

In this case, the Pension Fund refused to grant a pension twice, and both decisions were subsequently declared unlawful by the courts.

In 2024–2025, a court dispute arose in the Dnipropetrovsk Region concerning a woman’s right to an old-age pension. The dispute between Nazarkova and the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Dnipropetrovsk Region went through two full rounds of court proceedings before the appellate court finally resolved the matter.

In June 2024, after reaching retirement age, the applicant submitted an application to the Pension Fund for an old-age pension. However, the Pension Fund refused to grant the pension, citing an insufficient insurance record. In particular, the Pension Fund excluded certain periods of employment because of formal deficiencies in the employment record book and discrepancies in the spelling of the applicant’s name.

Disagreeing with the refusal, the claimant applied to the court for the first time by filing an administrative claim with the Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court in case No. 160/21402/24.

In November 2024, the court declared the Pension Fund’s decision unlawful and cancelled it, ordering the authority to reconsider the pension application in light of the court’s findings. At the same time, the court did not immediately order the Pension Fund to grant the pension and instead limited its judgment to requiring a new review of the application.

Both parties appealed the judgment; however, in March 2025 the Third Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision without changes.

Despite the court’s clear findings, the Pension Fund reconsidered the application and again refused to grant the pension. This time, it relied on a new justification, again alleging an insufficient insurance record because certain periods of employment had not been included.

As a result, the claimant was forced to apply to the court for a second time, this time in case No. 160/12714/25. She requested the court to:

• cancel the Pension Fund’s repeated refusal;
• include the disputed periods of employment and periods during which unemployment benefits were received in her insurance record;
• order the Pension Fund to grant her an old-age pension from July 2024.

Court Decisions and the Final Position of the Court of Appeal

On 24 June 2025, the court of first instance granted the claim in full and declared the actions of the Pension Fund unlawful. The court emphasised that:

• the employment record book is the primary document confirming employment history;
• formal errors or inaccuracies in its completion cannot deprive a person of the right to a pension;
• responsibility for maintaining employment record books rests with the employer rather than the employee.

The court expressly stated that a formalistic approach by a public authority cannot prevail over the substance of an individual’s right to a pension. Where entries in an employment record book are logical, consistent and do not contradict one another, they must be taken into account.

The Pension Fund appealed, but on 10 November 2025, the Third Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance. The appellate judgment entered into legal force.

In implementation of the judgment in the second court case, the Pension Fund granted the applicant a pension from the date on which she reached retirement age. As a result, the Pension Fund was required to pay Nazarkova the pension amounts due for the entire period during which the court proceedings were ongoing.

Practical Advice for Other Pensioners

1. Always obtain a written decision from the Pension Fund – it is essential for properly challenging the refusal.
2. Keep your employment record book – even if it contains old or inaccurate entries.
3. Do not treat court proceedings as an extraordinary measure: administrative courts are a standard legal mechanism for protecting pension rights.
4. Challenge repeated refusals if the Pension Fund ignores the findings of a court.
5. Keep the procedural time limits in mind: as a general rule, a six-month period may apply for filing an administrative claim after receiving the relevant decision.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates a simple but important principle: the right to a pension in Ukraine can be effectively protected, even where a person has to go through two separate rounds of court proceedings.

Ukrainian courts increasingly recognise that social rights should not be defeated by excessive formalism or bureaucratic obstacles. Where the Pension Fund refuses to recognise valid periods of employment on purely technical grounds, judicial review can provide an effective mechanism for restoring the person’s pension rights.