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.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings initiated upon the complaint of “Nikoprogressbud” LLC, since the decision of the court of first instance did not resolve the issue of the rights, freedoms, interests or obligations of the company. The court noted that only parties to the case, or persons whose rights and obligations are directly affected by the court decision, have the right to appeal. The fact that the enterprise has an obligation to reimburse the costs of paying preferential pensions does not make it a participant in the legal relations regarding the granting of a pension. The court also referred to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding restrictions on the right of access to court, which should not harm the very essence of this right. The Court noted that it departs from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, set forth in the ruling of November 11, 2024 in case No. 160/7289/22, taking into account the conclusion formulated in the ruling of May 13, 2025 in case No. 420/16041/23.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Nikoprogressbud” LLC, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
