The following is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging the actions of the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal regarding its refusal to issue certificates of judicial remuneration for the recalculation of the monthly lifetime retirement allowance of a retired judge, taking into account the general subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons rather than the “judicial” indicator specifically established by the State Budget Law.
2. **Court Arguments:**
* The Court departed from the previous position set forth in the Supreme Court resolution of November 17, 2025 (Case No. 520/32171/24) and formulated a new conclusion: in the event of an increase in the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons as of January 1 of the respective year, retired judges acquire the right to a recalculation of their lifetime retirement allowance.
* The Court emphasized that the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” is a special legislative act that does not provide for the possibility of applying any calculation values other than the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons established as of January 1 of the calendar year.
* The Supreme Court stressed that the State Budget Law cannot change the procedure for calculating judicial remuneration, as the Constitution of Ukraine does not grant it higher legal force over special laws.
* The introduction of a separate “subsistence minimum for judges” (UAH 2,102) in State Budget laws was recognized as an unlawful interference with the guarantees of judicial independence, which violates Article 130 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
* The Court rejected the appellate court’s reliance on the practice of the Grand Chamber (Case No. 240/9028/24), noting that said case concerned severance payments, not the recalculation of a lifetime allowance; therefore, the legal conclusions therein are not relevant to the current dispute.
* It was established that the court’s refusal to issue certificates with the correct subsistence minimum indicators was unfounded and constituted a violation of the plaintiff’s rights.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claims of PERSON_1 were satisfied in full.
