Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the court’s refusal to issue a certificate of judicial remuneration for the purpose of recalculating the monthly lifetime allowance of a retired judge, taking into account the current subsistence minimum.
2. In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the principle that the guarantees of judicial independence enshrined in the Constitution and the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” cannot be narrowed by establishing separate, reduced calculation values for determining the official salary in State Budget laws. The Supreme Court emphasized that the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, established as of January 1 of the relevant year, must be applied for the calculation of judicial remuneration without exception. The Court noted that previous practice, which allowed the use of a “special” indicator of UAH 2,102, has been reviewed by the judicial chamber, which formulated a legal conclusion on the necessity of applying the general subsistence minimum indicator. Importantly, the Court critically evaluated the appellate court’s reference to another ruling of the Grand Chamber, pointing to the lack of similarity in legal relations, as that case concerned severance payments rather than the recalculation of lifetime allowances. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed that any increase in the subsistence minimum as of January 1 constitutes grounds for the recalculation of judicial allowance. The Court explicitly states in its decision that it is departing from the previous position set forth in other Supreme Court rulings (in particular, in case No. 520/32171/24) regarding the application of the separate subsistence minimum indicator of UAH 2,102.
3. The Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, by which the claims of the retired judge were satisfied.
