Key Takeaways
- • The Rivne District Administrative Court ruled that the Pension Fund's refusal to credit a pensioner with four periods of direct ATO participation in 2015–2016 under the "one month for three" rule was unlawful, and ordered the fund to apply the preferential calculation.
- • The four service periods total 111 days, documented by a military unit certificate covering October 2015 to April 2016; the Pension Fund did not dispute the man's service or his presence in the ATO area.
- • The Pension Fund had refused on the basis that insurance experience after January 1, 2004 is calculated on a calendar basis, with preferential calculation applying only to length-of-service pensions.
- • The court held that preferential calculation is a legislative method for pension purposes and does not mean the person actually served longer than the calendar duration.
- • The ruling relied on a Supreme Court conclusion on the consequences of a 2025 decision invalidating some 2022 amendments to a Cabinet of Ministers resolution, and on a similar Third Administrative Court of Appeal ruling.
Summary
The Rivne District Administrative Court fully satisfied the claim of a man who receives an old-age pension, according to a report published by Судово-юридична газета. The court found the Pension Fund's refusal to credit four periods of direct participation in the anti-terrorist operation (ATO) to his insurance record unlawful and obliged the fund to credit all four periods using the preferential "one month for three" calculation, under which one month of service counts as three months. The periods total 111 days and run from October 2015 to April 2016.
The Pension Fund had refused, stating that it lacked legal grounds for preferential crediting. It argued that insurance experience after January 1, 2004 is calculated on a calendar basis and that preferential calculation of military service applies only when assigning a length-of-service pension. The man challenged the refusal in court. The plaintiff's direct ATO participation during all four periods was confirmed by a certificate from his military unit, and the Pension Fund did not dispute either his service or his presence in the ATO area. The dispute centred on whether those periods should be credited under the preferential rule.
The court established that the preferential "one month for three months" rules were in effect during the man's ATO participation. It noted that amendments made in 2022 to the relevant Cabinet of Ministers resolution were later recognized as unlawful and invalid in 2025. The court also considered the Supreme Court's conclusion on the legal consequences of that decision and a ruling by the Third Administrative Court of Appeal in a similar case, which had found the Pension Fund's refusal to credit ATO periods preferentially unlawful. The court stressed that calendar duration of service and its preferential calculation for pension purposes are distinct concepts; preferential calculation is a statutory method and does not mean the person actually served longer.
The Pension Fund had refused, stating that it lacked legal grounds for preferential crediting. It argued that insurance experience after January 1, 2004 is calculated on a calendar basis and that preferential calculation of military service applies only when assigning a length-of-service pension. The man challenged the refusal in court. The plaintiff's direct ATO participation during all four periods was confirmed by a certificate from his military unit, and the Pension Fund did not dispute either his service or his presence in the ATO area. The dispute centred on whether those periods should be credited under the preferential rule.
The court established that the preferential "one month for three months" rules were in effect during the man's ATO participation. It noted that amendments made in 2022 to the relevant Cabinet of Ministers resolution were later recognized as unlawful and invalid in 2025. The court also considered the Supreme Court's conclusion on the legal consequences of that decision and a ruling by the Third Administrative Court of Appeal in a similar case, which had found the Pension Fund's refusal to credit ATO periods preferentially unlawful. The court stressed that calendar duration of service and its preferential calculation for pension purposes are distinct concepts; preferential calculation is a statutory method and does not mean the person actually served longer.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.