1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the closing of appellate proceedings on the appeal of NikoProgresBud LLC against the decision of the court of first instance regarding the obligation of the Pension Fund to include certain periods of work in the preferential length of service of an individual and to review her application for the assignment of a pension on preferential terms.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court to close the appellate proceedings, since NikoProgresBud LLC is not a participant in public law relations in this case, and the decision of the court of first instance did not resolve the issue of its rights, freedoms, interests and/or obligations. The court took into account the previous conclusion of the Supreme Court in a similar case, which stated that employers do not have the right to appeal decisions on the assignment of pensions on preferential terms, even if they have an obligation to reimburse the costs of paying such pensions. The court also rejected the appellant’s motion to attach evidence, since the cassation instance does not have the right to establish new circumstances or re-evaluate evidence. The Court noted that it departed from the previous position set out in the ruling of November 11, 2024, in case No. 160/7289/22.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of NikoProgresBud LLC, and the ruling of the appellate court remained unchanged.
