Preferential Pension Service for Mine Work in Ukrainian Occupied Territories
The Pension Fund of Ukraine continues to apply Ukrainian legislation and its internal regulations in an excessively formalistic manner. Pensioners entitled to preferential retirement conditions are particularly affected. One of the most problematic issues is the recognition of periods of employment as preferential service.
The case discussed in this article concerns the inclusion in preferential service of periods of employment at a mine located in a territory not controlled by Ukraine. The claimant filed a lawsuit against the Pension Fund, seeking recognition of the disputed periods as preferential service and the granting of a pension.
The courts of first instance and appeal ruled in favour of the Pension Fund. They concluded that the claimant had only 19 years of confirmed service, whereas 25 years were required for the pension to be granted. At the same time, the courts failed to give proper consideration to the claimant's arguments.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the claimant, overturning the approach taken by the lower courts. The Supreme Court explained that where a person applying for a pension has disputed periods of employment, they may need to apply to the commission responsible for confirming periods of employment. Such an application is justified where the employment record book does not contain information about the relevant period of employment or does not provide information confirming full-time employment under harmful working conditions. However, where the employment record book contains complete information about the periods and nature of the person's employment, there is no need to apply to the commission for confirmation of the employment record.
Therefore, if the claimant's employment record book contains all the necessary records concerning their employment history and all mandatory details, the Pension Fund must take these periods into account when calculating preferential service.
The case also concerned the fact that the claimant's place of work was located in a territory not controlled by Ukraine. However, the company's registered legal address was located in territory controlled by Ukraine. Therefore, the relevant period of employment also had to be included in the claimant's preferential service.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court ruled that all disputed periods of employment should be included in the claimant's preferential service and that the pension should be granted. The Court found no grounds to consider the information contained in the employment record book unreliable. This legal approach may also be relevant to other similar pension disputes.
Meta Title Preferential Pension Service at a Mine in Occupied Territory: Supreme Court Practice H1 How to Confirm Preferential Mine Work Service in Ukrainian Occupied Territories Meta Description Can mine work in Ukrainian occupied territories count toward preferential pension service? Learn about employment records, Pension Fund refusals and Supreme Court practice. Meta Keywords preferential pension service Ukraine, mine work pension Ukraine, miners pension Ukraine, pension service occupied territory, employment record book Ukraine, Pension Fund of Ukraine, preferential service, pension dispute Ukraine, Supreme Court pension case, Ukrainian pension lawyer, pension rights Ukraine Article Tags Preferential Pension, Preferential Service, Miners Pension, Mine Work, Occupied Territories, Pension Fund of Ukraine, Employment Record, Supreme Court, Pension Dispute, Ukrainian Pension Law
