{"id":5553,"date":"2025-02-20T09:39:43","date_gmt":"2025-02-20T07:39:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-520-7743-24-dated-13-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-20T09:39:43","modified_gmt":"2025-02-20T07:39:43","slug":"case-no-520-7743-24-dated-13-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-520-7743-24-dated-13-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 520\/7743\/24 dated 13\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: A person challenges the Pension Fund&#8217;s decision to refuse the appointment of an old-age pension on general grounds with a new calculation of average salary.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and established that a person who is already receiving an old-age pension on preferential terms is not entitled to re-appointment of the same type of pension with a new calculation. The Court considers that Article 13 of the Pension Provision Law provides not a separate type of pension, but preferential conditions with a lower retirement age, and such a pension is appointed according to the general rules of the Law on Compulsory Pension Insurance.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, supporting the decisions of previous instances to refuse pension appointment.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125173096\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: A person challenges the Pension Fund&#8217;s decision to refuse the appointment of an old-age pension on general grounds with a new calculation of average salary. Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice and established that a person who is already receiving an old-age pension on preferential terms&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5553","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5553","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5553"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5553\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5553"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5553"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5553"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}