The Supreme Council: the termination of payments of pensions to internally displaced persons is illegal

Where this decision can be applied, the lawyer of law firm "Skliarenko, Sydorenko and Partners"

Unconfirmation of actual residence is not a statutory reason for stopping the payment of a pension, and the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of June 8, 2016 No. 365 "Some issues of the implementation of social payments to internally displaced persons" is a subordinate legal act that restricts the right to a pension that is established by law.

This conclusion was made on 4 September by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in an exemplary case, stating that the payment of a pension to an internally displaced person, appointed pursuant to the Law of Ukraine No. 1058-IV "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance", is illegal.

Explanations of the essence of the decision, the lawyer of law firm "Skliarenko, Sydorenko and partners" Tetiana Borysenko gave to the publication of the "Law and Business".

"The adoption of such an important decision by the Supreme Court will result in the state's termination of the budget of Ukraine at the expense of pensioners who became hostages of the war in the east of our country," the lawyer is convinced.

The expert noted that the findings of the model case No. 805/402/18 are applicable to administrative cases in which:

1) the plaintiff is a citizen of Ukraine; has the status of an internally displaced person, as evidenced by a certificate issued by the social protection agencies on registration as an internally displaced person;

2) the plaintiff is a pensioner and receives a pension prescribed in accordance with the Law of Ukraine of July 9, 2003 No. 1058-IV "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance";

3) the restoration of the payment of a pension requires additional actions by the plaintiff not provided for by the laws on pensions, in particular identification of the person, the submission of an application for restoring the payment of a pension that was suspended by the Pension Fund without legitimate reasons.

At the same time, the lawyer drew attention to the conclusions of the Supreme Court in this exemplary case can not be applied in cases: if the pension is appointed on the basis of documents containing inaccurate information; in case of death of the pensioner; in case of non-receipt of the prescribed pension for 6 consecutive months; in other cases provided for by law.

Tetiana Borysenko also recalled the history of making a landmark decision. In January 2018, the plaintiff applied to the Donetsk District Administrative Court with a lawsuit against the Bahmut Joint Board of the Pension Fund of Ukraine of the Donetsk region (hereinafter - the Office), in which he asked:

- to recognize the illegal actions of the Office of the termination of the payment of the assigned pension age;

- oblige the management to resume the payment of the assigned old age pensions and to pay the debt;

- to allow the immediate execution of the court decision regarding the payment of a pension within the amount of the penalty for one month in accordance with clause 1 of part 1 of Article 371 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine (hereinafter - CAS of Ukraine).

On February 20, 2018, the judge of the Donetsk Regional Administrative Court sent case materials No. 805/402/18 to the Supreme Court together with a submission on the consideration of the Armed Forces of this typical case as exemplary. On May 3, the claim was satisfied in full.

The PF management submitted an appeal to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which was refused on September 4.

The pension fund referred to the information received from the Security Service of Ukraine about the return of the plaintiff, who is internally displaced, in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine, which, in accordance with paragraph 1 of point 12 of the Procedure for monitoring social payments to internally displaced persons at their place of residence of the actual residence / stay, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of June 8, 2013, № 365.

However, the Supreme Court took the side of the plaintiff, noting that the non-confirmation of actual residence is not a statutory reason for stopping the payment of a pension, and the Cabinet of Ministers decree is a by-law that restricts the statutory right to receive a pension by the plaintiff.