The following is a detailed analysis of the court judgment, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging the Pension Fund’s refusal to recalculate the monthly lifetime judicial allowance of a retired judge based on a certificate of judicial remuneration calculated taking into account the subsistence minimum established as of January 1, 2024.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The court emphasized that the amount of judicial remuneration and, accordingly, the lifetime allowance of a retired judge must be calculated exclusively on the basis of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges,” which is a special law.
– The Supreme Court stressed that the Law on the State Budget cannot change the guarantees of judicial independence established by the Constitution and the special law, in particular by artificially limiting the subsistence minimum for calculating salaries.
– The court noted that the provisions of the Law on the State Budget regarding a “special” subsistence minimum for judges constitute an unlawful interference with the guaranteed level of financial support.
– An important aspect was that the court distinguished this case from the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 240/9028/24, as that case addressed calculation issues upon dismissal, rather than the recalculation of a lifetime allowance.
– The court expressly stated that it departs from the legal position set forth in the Supreme Court resolution of November 17, 2025, in case No. 520/32171/24, which previously allowed the Pension Fund to apply a limited amount of the subsistence minimum.
– Instead, the court supported the position of the Judicial Chamber of the Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court of February 17, 2026 (case No. 200/2309/25), which confirms the right of retired judges to a recalculation of the allowance upon each increase in the subsistence minimum established as of January 1 of the relevant year.
– Thus, the Pension Fund’s refusal was found to be unjustified, as it was based on an unconstitutional narrowing of judges’ social guarantees.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts, and adopted a new decision to satisfy the claims of PERSON_1, ordering the Pension Fund to carry out the recalculation of the lifetime monetary allowance.
