Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for you:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the Pension Fund’s refusal to include the period of employment as a trainee of a people’s judge into the special seniority, which affects the amount of the monthly lifetime judicial allowance for a retired judge.
2. In this case, the Supreme Court departed from its previous practice regarding the application of legal norms in calculating judicial seniority, changing the approach to defining “seniority in the field of law.” The Court noted that for judges who were elected to office before the adoption of the 1996 Constitution but continued to work after it came into force, the key moment for calculating seniority is the completion of the procedure of election by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for an indefinite term. The Court established that the seniority in the field of law, the requirement for which was provided by law precisely at the moment the judge acquired the constitutional status of a professional judge, must be included in the seniority. In this case, the Court applied the 2001 version of the Law “On the Status of Judges,” which required 3 years of experience in the field of law. Consequently, the period of work as a trainee was not fully included in the seniority, but only within the limit of three years, which corresponded to the qualification requirements of that time. This approach allowed the Court to balance the plaintiff’s interests and the requirements of the legislation, avoiding the automatic inclusion of the entire internship period.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and issued a new ruling, partially satisfying the claim and ordering the Pension Fund to include 3 years of internship in the special seniority and to recalculate the amount of the judge’s lifetime allowance to 84% of the judicial remuneration.
