Here is the analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your request:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Challenging the actions of the Pension Fund regarding the application of a specific procedure for the payment of a pension accrued in execution of a previous court decision, and a claim to compel the authority to make the payment without applying said procedure.
2. **Court’s arguments:** The Court emphasized that the execution of a court decision is the final stage of judicial proceedings; therefore, any disagreements regarding the method or completeness of its execution cannot be the subject of separate lawsuit proceedings. The Court officially departed from the legal position set forth in the Supreme Court resolution of April 30, 2026, in case No. 340/7985/25, which allowed for the possibility of considering such claims as a separate lawsuit. Instead, the Supreme Court supported the approach under which disputes concerning the actions of a public authority at the stage of decision execution must be resolved exclusively through the mechanisms of judicial control (in particular, filing a motion to compel the submission of a report on the execution of the decision or declaring the actions unlawful within the framework of an already existing case). The Court stressed that the use of general lawsuit proceedings for such purposes negates the special institution of judicial control and creates a risk of re-adjudicating issues that have already been resolved. Thus, the actions of the Pension Fund to execute a court decision do not constitute a new subject of dispute, but are merely a process of implementing an already established obligation.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of first instance and the resolution of the appellate court on the closure of the proceedings in the case, confirming that the plaintiff must use special procedural mechanisms of judicial control rather than filing a new lawsuit.
