1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the Pension Fund’s decision to refuse the granting of a pension on preferential terms and the obligation to include a certain period of work in the preferential length of service.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the court of appeal to close the appellate proceedings, since the decision of the court of first instance did not resolve the issue of the rights, freedoms, interests or obligations of “Odesa Mekhkolona No. 10” LLC, which filed an appeal. The court noted that in order to appeal the decision by a person who did not participate in the case, it is necessary to prove that the court decision directly concerns their rights and obligations, which was not established in this case. The court also took into account that the decision of the court of first instance did not oblige the Pension Fund to grant a pension, but only canceled the decision to refuse its granting in the part concerning the need to provide a clarifying certificate. In addition, the court noted that “Odesa Mekhkolona No. 10” LLC did not respond to the plaintiff’s request for the issuance of a clarifying certificate regarding the confirmation of preferential length of service. The court departed from its previous position regarding the right of employers to appeal decisions in pension cases where the obligation to reimburse the preferential pension arises.
3. The court of cassation dismissed the cassation appeal of “Odesa Mekhkolona No. 10” LLC, and left the ruling of the court of appeal unchanged.
