1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the Pension Fund’s decision to refuse the granting of a pension on preferential terms.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings on the complaint of “Odesa Mekhkolona No. 10” LLC, since the decision of the court of first instance did not resolve the issue of the rights, freedoms, interests and/or obligations of the company. The court noted that the decision concerned exclusively the parties to the case – the plaintiff (PERSON_1) and the Pension Fund, and the company’s obligation to reimburse the costs of paying the preferential pension does not affect the plaintiff’s right to its appointment. The court also indicated that the company can protect its rights when appealing the reimbursement calculations or in a case on debt collection. The court emphasized that only those persons whose rights and obligations are directly affected by these decisions have the right to appeal court decisions. The court departed from the previous legal position, noting that employers do not have the right to appeal decisions regarding preferential pensions of employees.
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Odesa Mekhkolona No. 10” LLC, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
