Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision prepared for your material:
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the Pension Fund’s refusal to recalculate the monthly lifetime judicial allowance of a retired judge, taking into account the current subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons as of January 1, 2024.
2. In this case, the Supreme Court departed from its previous position set forth in case No. 520/32171/24 regarding the application of the “frozen” subsistence minimum (UAH 2,102) for the calculation of judicial payments. The Court emphasized that the constitutional guarantee of judicial independence does not permit replacing the subsistence minimum provided for by the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” with other calculation values established by the State Budget Law. The panel of judges stressed that any substitution of this component with a lower value is unlawful. The Court also distinguished the current case from the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 240/9028/24, noting that the latter concerned different legal relations (severance payments) rather than the recalculation of a retired judge’s allowance. Furthermore, the Court took into account new legislative amendments, which codified the impossibility of using cost values other than the subsistence minimum for determining a judge’s official salary. Ultimately, the Court concluded that an increase in the subsistence minimum in the budget automatically creates grounds for the recalculation of payments to retired judges.
3. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s ruling, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which obliged the Pension Fund to perform the recalculation of the lifetime judicial allowance.
