1. **Subject of the dispute:** The plaintiff challenged the refusal of the Pension Fund to pay a monthly pension supplement (2,000 UAH) and pension indexation after his pension had been recalculated in compliance with a previous court decision.<\/p>\n
2. **Court\u2019s arguments:**
\n – The court determined that the recalculation of the plaintiff’s pension occurred due to a change in the amount of monetary allowance caused by an increase in the subsistence minimum, which serves as grounds for reviewing social payments.
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that the indexation and pension supplement under Resolutions No. 713 and No. 118 are intended to maintain purchasing power; however, they cannot be paid simultaneously with an increase in the base pension amount resulting from the recalculation of the monetary allowance.
\n – The court noted that after the pension recalculation based on an updated certificate of monetary allowance, the legal grounds for receiving additional payments (indexation and the 2,000 UAH supplement) are lost, as the base pension amount has already been increased.
\n – An important aspect was the application of the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the recalculation of a pension in connection with a change in the components of monetary allowance precludes the possibility of simultaneously receiving indexation provided for by special government resolutions.
\n – The court also pointed out that the application of a fixed value of 1,762 UAH (pursuant to Resolution No. 481) is unlawful, yet this does not negate the fact that after a pension is recalculated per a court decision, the payment of indexation ceases.
\n – The Supreme Court, sitting as a judicial chamber for the consideration of cases regarding the protection of social rights, departed from the conclusions set forth in the Supreme Court rulings of 20.10.2025 in case No. 600\/3516\/24-a and of 22.10.2025 in case No. 420\/3824\/25 regarding the absence of grounds for issuing certificates on the amount of monetary allowance using the subsistence minimum, establishing a new position on the necessity of applying the original wording of Clause 4 of Resolution No. 704.<\/p>\n
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to deny the claim.<\/p>\n