Can Local Government Service Be Counted Towards a Civil Service Pension?
After accumulating what he considered to be sufficient service in public-sector positions, a man applied to the Pension Fund of Ukraine requesting a transfer from an old-age pension granted under the legislation on compulsory state pension insurance to a pension under the legislation on civil service.
However, the Pension Fund refused the transfer. It acknowledged that the man had worked in civil service positions but calculated his relevant civil service record as only seven years.
The Pension Fund also noted that the claimant was no longer holding a relevant civil service position when the new Law of Ukraine “On Civil Service” entered into force on 1 May 2016. Therefore, according to the Pension Fund, he needed at least 20 years of qualifying civil service record to retain the right to a pension under the special rules applicable to civil servants.
The claimant had approximately 40 years of total employment record. This included seven years in civil service positions and 14 years as an official of local self-government bodies. However, when calculating his qualifying civil service record, the Pension Fund counted only the seven years of direct civil service.
Believing the refusal to be unlawful, the man challenged the Pension Fund’s decision before the court.
An important issue in the dispute was whether the claimant’s years of service as an official of local self-government bodies could be included in the service record required for entitlement to a civil service pension.
The court noted that because the claimant did not hold a relevant civil service position when the new legislation on civil service entered into force, entitlement to the special civil service pension depended on whether he had accumulated at least 20 years of qualifying service.
The Supreme Court therefore examined the rules governing both civil service and service in local self-government bodies.
The Court concluded that although service in local self-government bodies is legally distinct from civil service, the legislation applicable to the calculation of the relevant service record provided for certain periods of service in local self-government positions to be counted towards the service record required for civil service pension purposes.
Consequently, the claimant’s 14 years of service as a local self-government official could not simply be disregarded when determining whether he satisfied the 20-year service requirement.
When the relevant periods were combined with the claimant’s seven years of direct civil service, his qualifying service record exceeded 20 years.
The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the claimant satisfied the service requirement and was entitled, subject to the other statutory conditions, to a pension under the legislation governing civil service.
The practical significance of this legal position is that the formal distinction between civil service and service in local self-government bodies does not necessarily mean that periods of local government service must be excluded when determining pension entitlement.
Although service in local self-government bodies is not itself civil service, qualifying periods in relevant local self-government positions may be counted towards the service record required for a civil service pension where the applicable legislation expressly provides for such recognition.
Therefore, where the Pension Fund refuses to transfer a person to a civil service pension because it has counted only periods of direct civil service, it is necessary to examine the person’s entire employment history. Periods of service in local self-government bodies and other qualifying positions may affect whether the statutory service requirement has been satisfied.
If the Pension Fund incorrectly excludes such periods and this results in a refusal to grant or transfer the person to a civil service pension, the Pension Fund’s decision may be challenged before an administrative court.
