A man refuses to return an overpaid pension amount of 8,526 hryvnias to the Pension Fund. The court has made a decision on the matter.

The Pension Fund did not include certain work periods in the insurance record. However, after recalculation, the man is being asked to return an overpayment of pension amounting to 8,526 hryvnias for the period from June 12, 2024, to September 30, 2024. He claims that this pension overpayment occurred through no fault of his own. This was stated in a decision by the Ivanivsky District Court of the Odesa region, published on February 7, 2025.

On June 12, 2024, the man submitted an application to the Main Administration to transition from disability pension to old-age pension. Consequently, in June 2024, his pension was recalculated. The amount assigned from June 16, 2024, was 7,331 hryvnias. For the calculation of the average annual earnings for pension assignment, the salary for 185 months was taken into account. The average monthly salary was calculated at 17,724.05000. A review of the pension case revealed that work periods from December 1, 2007, to December 31, 2019, and for two months in 2020 were not included in the insurance record. After revising the pension case, insufficient salary periods for calculating the average monthly earnings were accounted for, and a period from March 1, 2024, to May 31, 2024, was added (after contributions were paid by the enterprise), resulting in a total of 333 months of salary. Due to the increase in counted insurance period, the average monthly salary for pension calculation decreased, and the average monthly salary for determining the pension amount was 11,951.67000. After recalculation, the pension assigned from June 12, 2024, amounts to 4,984 hryvnias. The pension case was brought into compliance. Following the clarification of the above facts, the Main Administration made a decision to account for the amount of pension overpayment as of September 25, 2024, according to which the overpayment for the period from June 12, 2024, to September 30, 2024, amounts to 8,526 hryvnias.

The man did not appear at the court hearing; however, he submitted a written statement to the court, noting that he does not acknowledge the claims as this overpayment occurred through no fault of his own, nor as a result of any unlawful actions on his part, and requested the application of Article 1215 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, as there was no dishonesty on his part and the specified payments were made by the pension authority based on its own calculations.

What did the court decide?

The court denied the Pension Fund’s claim. The reason for the overpayment is that the officials of the authority did not include the work periods from December 1, 2007, to December 31, 2019, and for two months in 2020 in the insurance record, which resulted in an incorrect recalculation of the man's pension. 

"The Main Administration of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Odesa region did not provide the court with any evidence confirming the circumstances of abuse or dishonesty on the part of the defendant. Furthermore, no results of an internal investigation regarding employee errors in calculating pension benefits or evidence of software malfunctions leading to technical errors and excessive payments were presented to the court. The plaintiff did not present any other arguments or circumstances of dishonesty on the part of the pension recipient. The cause of the overpayment is the fact that the officials of the authority did not include the work periods from December 1, 2007, to December 31, 2019, and for two months in 2020 in the insurance record, which resulted in an incorrect recalculation of the defendant's pension. Moreover, the plaintiff does not allege any dishonesty in the defendant’s actions. As the court determined that an error occurred during the pension assignment process for the defendant, it was found that there was no dishonesty on the part of the pension recipient, and the overpayment arose as a result of actions taken by the Pension Fund management employees. Under such circumstances, in resolving the dispute, the court found that the plaintiff (the payer of funds) did not prove the fact of dishonesty on the part of the defendant (the recipient of funds). Given this, the plaintiff's claims are unproven, and thus the court denies their satisfaction," the court emphasized.