Preferential Pension for Air Traffic Controllers in Ukraine

Retirement is an important procedure that may significantly affect a person's future financial security. Unfortunately, not everyone pays sufficient attention to preparing for retirement. In particular, many people are unaware of the eligibility requirements for a pension and the documents that must be submitted.

There is also a difference between the statutory requirements for retirement and the documents required to confirm eligibility. Under the general rules, a person must reach the statutory retirement age and have the required period of insurance coverage to qualify for an old-age pension in Ukraine.

However, Ukrainian legislation provides certain exceptions to the general retirement rules. These exceptions apply, in particular, to occupations involving difficult, harmful or particularly demanding working conditions that may adversely affect a person's health. Such occupations include employees directly involved in air traffic control in airport and air hub zones, including air traffic controllers.

An air traffic controller performs the following duties:

• directly controls air traffic and provides air traffic control services to aircraft within the area of responsibility of the relevant control unit;
• receives air traffic control information and transmits it to adjacent air traffic control units;
• provides aircraft crews with instructions concerning flight modes, trajectories and routes for descent before landing and climb after take-off;
• calculates and maintains the required intervals for aircraft departures, arrivals and other air traffic operations.

Depending on the applicable legislation, the period of employment and the specific nature of the work performed, an air traffic controller may qualify for an old-age pension on preferential terms. In determining eligibility, it is necessary to establish the employee's total insurance record and the duration of employment in an occupation that entitles the person to preferential retirement.

Particular attention should be paid to documentary confirmation of preferential pensionable service. As a general rule, information about employment periods and positions is contained in the employment record book. However, if the entries in the employment record book are incomplete, inaccurate or do not contain sufficient information to establish the preferential nature of the work, an additional clarifying certificate confirming the employment period and working conditions may be required.

In practice, the Pension Fund of Ukraine may request such certificates even where the employment record book contains sufficient information about the employee's position and period of employment. If the applicant cannot obtain the requested certificate, the Pension Fund may refuse to include the relevant period in preferential pensionable service and, consequently, refuse to grant a preferential pension.

However, a refusal by the Pension Fund of Ukraine is not final and may be challenged before an administrative court. When substantiating a claim, it is important to take into account the relevant case law of the Supreme Court concerning confirmation of employment periods and preferential pensionable service.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly addressed situations in which the Pension Fund refused to recognize periods of employment because of documentary deficiencies or demanded additional documents despite the availability of relevant information in the employment record book. Depending on the circumstances of the particular case, purely formal deficiencies in employment documents should not automatically deprive a person of the right to a pension if the actual nature and duration of employment can be established on the basis of available evidence.

Therefore, if an air traffic controller is refused a preferential pension, it is advisable to analyse the Pension Fund's decision, employment record book, clarifying certificates, archival documents and other evidence confirming the nature and duration of employment. If the refusal is unlawful, the Pension Fund's decision may be challenged in court.