The Pension Fund overpaid a retiree 543,315 hryvnias and is demanding repayment. What was the court's decision on this matter?

A man was receiving a pension for his years of service. Subsequently, he was reinstated in his position as an inspector in the traffic organization sector. As a result, an overpayment of pension occurred for the period from January 31, 2025, to January 31, 2023, amounting to 543,315 hryvnias. This was stated in the decision of the Dnipro District Court of Kyiv, published on January 29, 2025.

The man was registered with the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Kyiv, receiving a pension for his years of service in accordance with the Law of Ukraine "On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service and Certain Other Persons." Citing the provisions of this Law and Cabinet Resolution No. 103 dated February 21, 2018, "On the Recalculation of Pensions for Persons Dismissed from Military Service and Certain Other Categories of Persons," the plaintiff emphasizes that pensioners among military personnel and those receiving pensions under this Law, in the event of their reappointment to military service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, other formations established in accordance with Ukrainian laws, the State Special Communications and Information Protection Service of Ukraine, and the State Special Transport Service, service in the National Police, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the Bureau of Economic Security of Ukraine, the Judicial Protection Service, civil protection bodies and units, and the State Criminal-Executive Service of Ukraine, will have their pension payments suspended during their service. According to the decision of the Kyiv District Administrative Court dated November 7, 2022, in case No. 826/3850/15, by order No. 12 o/s of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine dated December 26, 2022, he was reinstated as an inspector in the traffic organization sector of the State Automobile Inspectorate servicing the Desnyansky District, subordinate to the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Kyiv since January 17, 2015. Consequently, an overpayment of pension arose for the period from January 31, 2025, to January 31, 2023, totaling 543,315 hryvnias (529,763 hryvnias + 13,551 hryvnias).

The man requested to deny the claim, arguing that after 25 years of honorable service in the police, he was unlawfully dismissed on January 16, 2015. The illegality of his dismissal is confirmed by the decision of the Kyiv District Administrative Court No. 826/3850/15 dated November 7, 2022. After his unlawful dismissal, he secured pension provision and lawfully received pension benefits for his years of service in accordance with the Law of Ukraine "On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service and Certain Other Persons." Starting from April 2023, the Pension Fund of Ukraine ceased pension payments, effectively leaving him without means of support. The illegality of the plaintiff's actions is the subject of dispute in administrative case No. 320/44382/23. In compliance with the decision of the Kyiv District Administrative Court, by order No. 12 o/s of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine dated December 26, 2022, he was reinstated in his position as of January 17, 2015. By order No. 4 o/s of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine dated March 9, 2023, he was dismissed from the position of inspector in the traffic organization sector of the State Automobile Inspectorate servicing the Desnyansky District, subordinate to the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Kyiv since January 17, 2015. According to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights dated April 11, 2024, in the case Lesechko v. Ukraine (Application No. 4629/24), proceedings were opened regarding violations by the Ukrainian state of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention (excessive length of civil judicial proceedings, as well as the absence of any effective remedy in national law) in examining case No. 826/3850/15 in national judicial proceedings. The Pension Fund of Ukraine unjustifiably claims that the issuance of the reinstatement order resulted in an overpayment of pension for the period from January 31, 2015, to January 31, 2023, amounting to 543,315 hryvnias. Citing the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Constitution of Ukraine, and the Law of Ukraine "On Pension Provision for Persons Dismissed from Military Service and Certain Other Persons," it is noted that pensions for military personnel and individuals entitled to pensions under this Law are assigned and paid after their dismissal from service. Pension payments for retirees among military personnel and those receiving pensions under this Law are suspended during their service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, other military formations, the State Special Communications and Information Protection Service of Ukraine, the State Special Transport Service, the National Police, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, the Bureau of Economic Security of Ukraine, the Judicial Protection Service, civil protection bodies and units, and the State Criminal-Executive Service of Ukraine.

What was the court's decision?

The court denied the claim. The man was assigned a lifetime pension starting from January 31, 2015.

"The court notes that the acquisition of pension payments by the defendant was not unfounded, as the payments were made by the Pension Fund based on legislation establishing pensions by age. The plaintiff believes that since the defendant was reinstated in his position, he must return the pension sums paid to him; however, the plaintiff does not refer to any accounting errors in the payments made, and the absence of bad faith on the part of the defendant is objectively evident from the case materials, as the reinstatement of the plaintiff occurred by court decision. In the absence of any credible evidence of bad faith in acquiring pension sums, there are no legal grounds to recover them from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff as unjustly acquired. Such funds were not unjustly acquired, as they were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in accordance with pension provision requirements during the period when the defendant had the right to receive them," the court emphasized.