1. The subject of the dispute in the case is the refusal of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Dnipropetrovsk region to include in the length of service of a judge an additional three years of work in the field of law, necessary for the first appointment to the position of a judge, which affected the amount of the monthly lifelong monetary allowance of a retired judge.
2. The court of first instance satisfied the claim, based on the fact that the length of service of the plaintiff, which entitles her to receive a monthly lifelong monetary allowance, is a full 23 years, and therefore her monthly lifelong monetary allowance of a retired judge should be determined in the amount of 56% of the judge’s remuneration. The appellate court overturned this decision, noting that an increase in the amount of the monthly lifelong monetary allowance of a judge by two percent for each full year of work is provided only for work as a judge for more than 20 years. The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach, referring to the fact that the length of service in the position of a judge includes the length of service (experience) of a judge in the field of law, which was required by law as a minimum for such a judge to acquire the right to be appointed to the position of a judge on the date of such appointment. The Court also emphasized that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court had already expressed a similar position in previous decisions.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, siding with the plaintiff.
