Can University Studies Be Counted Towards a Prosecutor’s Pension Service Record?
A woman had worked in the prosecution service for many years. When she became eligible to apply for a pension in 2016, she applied to the Pension Fund of Ukraine requesting that she be granted a pension and that the period during which she studied at a law faculty be counted towards her qualifying service.
However, the Pension Fund refused both to grant her the pension and to include the period of university study in her qualifying service.
In particular, the period of study was not counted because the woman’s university diploma contained a different surname.
The Pension Fund also refused to grant the pension on the ground that the Law of 2 March 2015 had repealed certain provisions governing pension benefits for employees of the prosecution service.
To understand the dispute, it is necessary to consider the legislative changes that occurred during the relevant period. While the woman was working in the prosecution service, the 1991 Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office” was in force. On 14 October 2014, a new Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor’s Office” was adopted, introducing a new legislative framework governing, among other matters, the prosecution service and the relevant pension rights.
The question therefore arose: which legislation should be applied when determining entitlement to a prosecutor’s pension for years of service?
When examining the relevant legislative provisions, the Supreme Court concluded that the Law of 2 March 2015 had indeed affected the pension provisions contained in the earlier 1991 Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office”. However, this did not mean that the Pension Fund could simply disregard the pension provisions contained in the subsequently applicable legislation governing the Prosecutor’s Office.
Accordingly, when considering an application for a prosecutor’s pension for years of service, the Pension Fund must determine which version of the legislation applies to the claimant’s circumstances and whether the statutory requirements for entitlement to the pension have been satisfied.
A refusal based solely on the argument that the Law of 2 March 2015 abolished the earlier pension provisions is therefore insufficient if the person’s entitlement must be assessed under other applicable provisions of the legislation governing the prosecution service.
A separate issue concerned the woman’s university studies. The Pension Fund refused to count this period because the surname stated in her higher education diploma differed from the surname appearing in her pension documents.
However, during the court proceedings, the woman submitted an official certificate from the university confirming that she had studied at and graduated from that institution during the relevant period.
The evidence therefore made it possible to establish that the diploma belonged to the claimant despite the difference in surname.
The Court concluded that the discrepancy in the surname stated in the diploma could not, in itself, justify refusing to recognise the relevant period of study where other reliable evidence confirmed that the educational document belonged to the claimant.
Where the legislation governing prosecutors’ pensions permits the relevant period of legal education to be included in qualifying service, such a period must therefore be taken into account once the fact and duration of the studies have been properly confirmed.
To summarise:
– When considering an application for a prosecutor’s pension for years of service, the Pension Fund must apply the legislation governing the prosecution service that is legally applicable to the claimant’s circumstances and cannot refuse the pension merely by referring to the repeal of provisions contained in earlier legislation.
– A different surname in a university diploma is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for refusing to count the relevant period of study towards qualifying service if other documents reliably establish that the diploma belongs to the applicant and confirm the period of study.
