{"id":5687,"date":"2025-02-22T09:56:55","date_gmt":"2025-02-22T07:56:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-380-7193-24-dated-18-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-22T09:56:55","modified_gmt":"2025-02-22T07:56:55","slug":"case-no-380-7193-24-dated-18-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-380-7193-24-dated-18-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 380\/7193\/24 dated 18\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: A person receiving an age pension on preferential terms challenges the Pension Fund&#8217;s refusal to assign them an age pension on general grounds with a new calculation.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court changed its previous legal position and indicated that persons receiving an age pension on preferential terms under Law No. 1788-XII are not entitled to re-assignment of an age pension on general grounds under Law No. 1058-IV. The court emphasized that Article 13 of Law No. 1788-XII provides not a separate type of pension, but preferential conditions for age pension assignment (reduction of retirement age), and such pension is assigned and paid under the conditions of Law No. 1058-IV.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied, supporting the decisions of previous instances regarding the refusal to assign the pension.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125248085\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: A person receiving an age pension on preferential terms challenges the Pension Fund&#8217;s refusal to assign them an age pension on general grounds with a new calculation. Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court changed its previous legal position and indicated that persons receiving an age pension on preferential terms under&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-5687","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\/5687","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=5687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}