Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the Pension Fund’s refusal to recalculate the monthly lifetime retirement allowance of a retired judge based on a certificate of the amount of judicial remuneration issued in compliance with a previous court decision.
2. When rendering the decision, the Court was guided by the position set forth in the Supreme Court resolution of February 17, 2026, which departed from previous conclusions regarding the application of the subsistence minimum for calculating judicial remuneration. The Court emphasized that the subsistence minimum established by the Law on the State Budget for the relevant year must be applied to determine the base amount of a judge’s official salary, without the use of artificial restrictions. Any substitution of this value for another one not provided for by the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” was recognized as unlawful. The Supreme Court emphasized that an increase in the subsistence minimum automatically creates a right for retired judges to have their allowance recalculated. Furthermore, the Court noted that the new legislative amendments of June 2026 only confirm this approach, although they do not have retroactive effect on the disputed legal relations. Separately, the Court rejected the Pension Fund’s arguments regarding the missed statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit, as the plaintiff applied for a recalculation immediately after receiving the certificate issued in compliance with the court’s decision.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the Pension Fund’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which had granted the claim.
