The following is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the lawfulness of the Pension Fund’s refusal to recalculate the monthly lifetime monetary maintenance of a retired judge, taking into account the current amount of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons established by the Law on the State Budget for 2024.
2. The Supreme Court in this case departed from its own previous position (specifically, that set forth in case No. 520/32171/24), which allowed for the application of a reduced subsistence minimum rate (UAH 2,102) for calculating judicial remuneration. The Court emphasized that the constitutional guarantee of judicial independence requires the application of the specific subsistence minimum amount established by the Law on the State Budget for the relevant year, without the possibility of its artificial limitation by other acts. The Court stressed that any substitution of this value with a lower one is unlawful and violates the requirements of Article 130 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The Supreme Court noted that an increase in the subsistence minimum as of January 1 automatically creates legal grounds for the recalculation of the lifetime maintenance of retired judges. Furthermore, the Court indicated that the lower courts mistakenly applied the case law of the Grand Chamber, which concerned other legal relationships (calculations upon dismissal) rather than the recalculation of retirement maintenance. Thus, the right to a recalculation is an unconditional consequence of the change in the legislatively established amount of the subsistence minimum.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and rendered a new judgment granting the claims in terms of declaring the Pension Fund’s refusal unlawful and ordering the recalculation of the retired judge’s lifetime monetary maintenance.
