1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of the Pension Fund’s refusal to recalculate the monthly lifetime judicial allowance for a retired judge, taking into account the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons established as of January 1, 2024 (UAH 3,028).<\/p>\n
2. The Supreme Court, guided by the principle of judicial independence, noted that judicial remuneration is regulated exclusively by a special law \u2014 the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges,” and not by the Law on the State Budget. The Court emphasized that the artificial introduction in the budget law of a separate “subsistence minimum for judges” (UAH 2,102) instead of the general one (UAH 3,028) constitutes an unlawful narrowing of the guarantees of judicial independence. The Supreme Court stressed that the law on the budget does not have higher legal force than special laws and cannot amend their provisions. It was also indicated that the appellate court’s reference to the practice of the Grand Chamber in case No. 240\/9028\/24 is erroneous, as those legal relations concerned other matters (severance payments). In conclusion, the Supreme Court confirmed that the plaintiff has a legal right to a recalculation of payments based on the actual subsistence minimum established as of January 1, 2024. In this case, the Supreme Court relied on the legal position formed by the Judicial Chamber in the resolution dated February 17, 2026, in case No. 200\/2309\/25, which establishes the priority of special legislation over budgetary restrictions regarding the determination of the amount of judicial remuneration.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the resolution of the appellate court, and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to mandate the Pension Fund to perform a recalculation of the judge’s lifetime judicial allowance.<\/p>\n