{"id":5689,"date":"2025-02-22T09:57:33","date_gmt":"2025-02-22T07:57:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/02\/case-no-560-20051-23-dated-18-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-02-22T09:57:33","modified_gmt":"2025-02-22T07:57:33","slug":"case-no-560-20051-23-dated-18-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/02\/case-no-560-20051-23-dated-18-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 560\/20051\/23 dated 18\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: A person challenges the Pension Fund&#8217;s decision to refuse to assign them an old-age pension on general grounds with a new calculation of average salary.<\/p>\n<p>Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court changed its previous legal position and indicated that persons receiving preferential old-age pension under Law No. 1788-XII are not entitled to re-assignment of an old-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 with a lower retirement age, and such pension is assigned according to the rules of Law No. 1058-IV.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The Supreme Court left the plaintiff&#8217;s cassation appeal unsatisfied and supported the decisions of previous judicial instances to refuse pension assignment.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125248091\"><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 to assign them an old-age pension on general grounds with a new calculation of average salary. Main Court Arguments: The Supreme Court changed its previous legal position and indicated that persons receiving preferential old-age pension under Law No. 1788-XII are not entitled to&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-5689","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\/5689","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=5689"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5689\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5689"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5689"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5689"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}