{"id":9158,"date":"2025-05-19T10:10:32","date_gmt":"2025-05-19T07:10:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/05\/case-no-160-31385-23-dated-may-14-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-05-19T10:10:32","modified_gmt":"2025-05-19T07:10:32","slug":"case-no-160-31385-23-dated-may-14-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/05\/case-no-160-31385-23-dated-may-14-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 160\/31385\/23 dated May 14, 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Pension Fund to grant an old-age pension on general grounds to a person who is already receiving a pension on preferential terms.<\/p>\n<p>The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim, based on the fact that a person who is already receiving an old-age pension on preferential terms cannot be re-granted an old-age pension on general grounds using a different average wage indicator. The court noted that a pension on preferential terms is the same type of old-age pension, but is granted earlier, and re-granting a pension of the same type is not provided by law. The court also took into account that Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine &#8220;On Pension Provision&#8221; provides for preferential conditions for retirement, and not a separate type of pension provision. **** Importantly, the Supreme Court departed from previous conclusions regarding the possibility of transferring from a preferential pension to an old-age pension on general grounds.<\/p>\n<p>The court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/127376292\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The subject of the dispute is the refusal of the Pension Fund to grant an old-age pension on general grounds to a person who is already receiving a pension on preferential terms. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which dismissed the claim, based on the fact that a&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-9158","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\/9158","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=9158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9158\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}