The Pension Fund does not comply with the court decision: how to act to achieve justice

The presence of a court decision in favor of a citizen does not mean that the case is finally resolved, especially when it comes to disputes with state bodies. One of the most common examples of delays and ignoring are situations when the Pension Fund of Ukraine does not comply with a court decision that obliges it to transfer a pension, make a payment or restore the applicant’s rights. People are forced to wait for months or years, receive formal rejections or receive no feedback at all.
The Editorial Board of IA “FAKT” turned to the practicing lawyers of the “Repeshko and Partners” Bar Association to find out: exactly what actions a citizen can take in such a situation, where to turn, what tools to use and what to pay attention to in order to force the PFU to fully comply with the court’s decision.
Lawyers are well aware that obtaining a positive court decision in favor of the plaintiff is only half the way. After all, the main thing for which a citizen goes to court is the actual receipt of what belongs to him or should belong to him. And unfortunately, for various reasons, it is not always possible to implement a positive court decision.
Cases in which a state body is a party have always stood separately from other cases. After all, everyone understands that the task of the state is to pay as little as possible, and the citizen – to receive everything that is due to him by law. We have always had the largest number of court cases between citizens and state bodies with the Pension Fund of Ukraine (PFU), because it is this body that is responsible for calculating and paying pensions for old age, disability for the loss of a breadwinner, and others. And if a citizen appealed to the PFU court, it means that he has no other way to protect his personal rights.
At first glance, it may seem that when there is a court decision – especially in favor of a pensioner – then all that remains is to wait until the Pension Fund transfers the appropriate amount. After all, we are talking about a state institution that has access to the budget, where funds are always circulating. But here reality begins – not so simple and by no means automatic. Budget money is not a universal wallet from which you can freely withdraw funds at the first request. All state finances have a clear purpose. In other words, if there is a billion hryvnias in the account of the Pension Fund, this does not mean that even a penny of this amount can be spent on repaying the debt according to the court’s decision.
For example, if the PFU account received funds exclusively for the payment of survivor’s pensions, then even if there is a court decision regarding indexation of the pension or additional payment for another type of security, these funds cannot be transferred to another purpose. They are “attached” to their line in the budget and cannot be used arbitrarily. This is one of the main paradoxes of the situation: there seems to be money, but there is none for your business.
In order to understand where to get the funds from, if the court decision has already been passed, but the Pension Fund refuses or sends formal answers, it is worth referring to the Law of Ukraine “On State Guarantees for the Execution of Court Decisions”. According to Article 3 of this law, the decision of the court to recover funds from the state body is not carried out by the debtor himself, but by the State Treasury Service of Ukraine — and only within the limits of budget allocations specially provided for this purpose.
That is, the state lays down a separate financial “basket” from which court decisions issued against state bodies should be financed. But this “basket” is not immeasurable. It is limited, and the queue for it is long. As they say: “We were sharing an orange. There are many of us – he is one.” The size of these funds is determined every year within the state budget, and how exactly it will be divided depends not on you, but on the general queue of applications and priorities of the treasury.
Thus, the budget of the Pension Fund of Ukraine for 2024, approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated 11.10.2024 No. 1156, provides for expenses for the repayment of arrears from pension payments (monthly lifelong maintenance) according to court decisions in the amount of UAH 500.0 million, which were financed in full. As of 01.01.2025, the payment of the arrears was ensured according to court decisions that entered into force in the period up to 19.11.2020. As we can see, the payments are coming, albeit with a delay. It is clear that if it is possible not to pay someone, then they will try to do it. But in order not to wait for years for payments based on court decisions, there are the following fairly effective mechanisms that will allow you to receive the appropriate payments as quickly as possible.
The first thing that a citizen needs to do is to start the mechanism of enforcement of the court decision, because even the court decision that has entered into force, the PFU will not be implemented until it is done through the executive service.
For this, it is necessary to fulfill a number of prerequisites:
- to receive a copy of the decision that has entered into force and an executive letter on the case in the district administrative court;
- submit this executive letter to the department of enforcement of decisions of the department of enforcement of decisions;
- to receive in writing information about the progress of execution of the executive order by state executors.
We also recommend simultaneously submitting an application to the PFU administration with a request to execute the court decision as soon as possible (to which you must attach a copy of the writ of execution, a copy of the court decision, statements of the State Executive Service) and receive a written response.
It is at this stage that an actual stop in the case is possible. The state executor will throw up his hands and say that there are no funds, wait… It is after receiving information about the progress of the execution of the court decision that you need to move on to the next levers of influence. There are several of them and they can be used both sequentially and simultaneously.
Let’s start with the fact that the PFU’s failure to comply with the court’s decision is a violation of Article 1291 According to the Constitution of Ukraine, which establishes that a court decision is binding, the state ensures the execution of a court decision in the manner determined by law.
Also, in the Criminal Code of Ukraine there is article 382 – “Non-execution of a court decision”, and it states:
“1. Deliberate non-execution of a judgment, decision, resolution, court resolution that has entered into force, or obstruction of their execution –
shall be punished by a fine from five hundred to one thousand tax-free minimum incomes of citizens (8,500 – 17,000 UAH) or imprisonment for a term of up to three years.
- The same actions committed by an official –
shall be punished by a fine of seven hundred and fifty to one thousand non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens (12,750-17,000 UAH) or imprisonment for a term of up to five years, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.
- Actions provided for in the first or second part of this article, committed by an official who occupies a responsible or particularly responsible position, or by a person previously tried for a crime provided for in this article, or if they caused significant damage to the rights and freedoms of citizens protected by law, state or public interests or the interests of legal entities, –
shall be punished by deprivation of liberty for a term of three to eight years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.”
In addition, according to Art. 367 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, official negligence, i.e. non-performance or improper performance by an official of his official duties due to a dishonest attitude towards them, which caused significant damage to the legally protected rights, freedoms and interests of individual citizens, state or public interests or the interests of individual legal entities, is punishable by a fine of two hundred and fifty to five hundred tax-free minimum incomes of citizens or corrective works on a term of up to two years, or restriction of liberty for a term of up to three years, with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years.
At the same time, according to Art. 185-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, failure by an official to review a separate court decision or failure to take measures to eliminate the violations of the law specified in it, as well as untimely response to a separate court decision – entail the imposition of a fine of twenty to fifty tax-free minimum incomes of citizens.
In order to apply these legal norms, it is necessary to collect the relevant documents (copies of the court decision, enforcement letter, response of the executive service, passport, code, correspondence with state authorities if available) and submit a statement to the police department with its entry in the EDDRDR. In the future, it is necessary to shake up not only the state executive, but also the police investigator so that things really move somewhere, and not hang as a dead load that no one needs.
The following mechanisms are not well known to citizens and are provided for by the Code of Administrative Justice of Ukraine (KASU), which is precisely what the collection from the PFU is based on. The essence is that the person-plaintiff, in whose favor the court decision was passed, has the right to submit to the court of first instance an application for recognition of illegal decisions, actions or inactions committed by the subject of authority – the defendant (PFU) in order to implement such a court decision, or violation of the plaintiff’s rights confirmed by such a court decision.
Such a statement states:
1) name of the administrative court to which the application is submitted;
2) the plaintiff’s name, postal address, as well as the number of the means of communication, e-mail address (if available), information about the presence or absence of an electronic account;
3) name (designation) of the defendant, position and place of service of the official or official, postal address, as well as the number of the means of communication, e-mail address, if they are known;
4) the name, postal address, number of the means of communication, e-mail address of the third parties who participated in the consideration of the case, if they are known;
5) administrative case number;
6) information on the entry into force of the decision and on the existence of open cassation proceedings;
7) information about the day of presentation of the writ of execution for execution;
8) information on the progress of executive proceedings;
9) a document on the payment of a court fee, except in cases where it is not required to be paid for the submission of the relevant application;
10) list of attached documents and other materials.
In support of the circumstances regarding the substantiation of his claims, the plaintiff notes the evidence that he is aware of and that can be used by the court. Evidence of sending it to other participants in the case is attached to the application. The application specified in the first part of this article can be submitted within ten days from the day when the plaintiff learned or should have learned about the violation of his rights, freedoms or interests, but not later than the day of the end of the period for presentation for the execution of the executive letter issued according to the relevant decision court If the application meets the requirements specified in this article, it is subject to review and decision in written proceedings or in a court session at the discretion of the court within ten days from the date of its receipt. Non-arrival at the court session of persons who have been duly notified does not prevent consideration of such an application.
If there are grounds for granting the application, the court issues a decision in the prescribed manner Article 249 CASHIER The specified norm stipulates that the court, having discovered a violation of the law during the consideration of the case, can issue a separate resolution and send it to the relevant subjects of authority to take measures to eliminate the causes and conditions that contributed to the violation of the law. If necessary, the court may issue a separate ruling on the existence of grounds for consideration of the issue of bringing to justice persons whose decisions, actions, or inactions are recognized as illegal.
In order to ensure the implementation of the instructions contained in a separate decision, the court sets a deadline for providing an answer depending on the content of the instructions and the time required for their implementation. A separate resolution regarding a violation of the legislation, which contains signs of a criminal offense, is sent to the prosecutor or the pretrial investigation body, which must provide the court with an answer on the measures taken by them within the time limit specified in the separate resolution. At the relevant request of the prosecutor or the pre-trial investigation body, the specified period may be extended.
As you can see, this mechanism is quite serious, but not the only lever of influence.
If the court heard your case against a public body (for example, the Pension Fund) and decided in your favor, you have the right to ask the court to monitor the implementation of this decision. For this, it is enough to submit a written application. After that, the court can oblige the state institution to submit a report — that is, to officially explain what exactly was done to implement the decision, and to meet a clearly established deadline. Moreover, the court may require such a report without your statement if it deems it necessary. This is one of the ways to force state bodies not to ignore court decisions and not to “procrastinate” with their implementation.
In administrative cases concerning the calculation, appointment, recalculation, implementation, provision, receipt of pension payments, social payments to disabled citizens, payments under the mandatory state social insurance, payments and benefits to children of war, other social payments, additional payments, social services, assistance, protection and benefits, upon the written application of the applicant, the court obligates the subject of authority, not in whose favor the adopted judicial decision decision, submit a report on the execution of the court decision.
It should be noted that the absence of executive proceedings for enforcement of a court decision does not prevent consideration of the application. Upon the written application of the applicant, the court may oblige the subject of authority, in whose favor such a decision was not made, to submit a report on its implementation during the adoption of the decision. The period for submitting the report begins from the day the court decision becomes legal.
Such a statement can be submitted no later than the end of the court proceedings, and if the case is considered in the order of simplified legal proceedings – no later than thirty days from the day of the opening of the proceedings in the case. Based on the results of the consideration of the application, the court issues a decision.
The fact is that this system of coercion has its own separate levers on officials and is not an empty formality. In the case of a ruling on refusal to accept the report, the court imposes on the head of the subject of power a fine in the amount of twenty to forty amounts of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, and may additionally set a new deadline for submitting the report or, on its own initiative, consider the issue of changing the method and order of execution of the court decision. At the same time, half of the amount of the fine is collected in favor of the applicant, the other half – to the State Budget of Ukraine. As of 2025, the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons is UAH 3,028, and the amount of the fine will be from UAH 60,560 to UAH 121,120. From the next day after the decision enters into legal force, interest in the amount of three percent per annum, taking into account the inflation index, is charged on the amount of the fine without an additional court decision.
However, if the court decision concerns the implementation of payments (pension, social, etc.), the court may (may, but is not obliged to) reduce the amount of the fine or exempt it from payment on the basis of evidence that confirms the absence of budget allocations at the subject of authority and the adoption by its head of all necessary measures to establish such budget allocations, which, in the court’s opinion, are sufficient and exhaustive at the time of the review of the report.
The Supreme Court itself notes that judicial control is one of the most effective ways of ensuring the execution of court decisions, as it is a guarantee of compliance with the law and the rights of other subjects; allows to minimize the possibility of abuse; encourages the obliged person to comply with court decisions voluntarily and without applying appropriate sanctions to him; provides for the possibility of applying additional measures to identify real obstacles to the execution of a court decision, in particular by responding to it with individual court decisions; contributes to increasing the level of public trust in the judicial system.
However, the most important thing to know for someone who has entered into an exhausting struggle with the Pension Fund is a simple, albeit bitter, principle: in the battle for justice, the state will rarely take the side of a citizen on its own initiative. And if you want a result, you will have to be not only a plaintiff, but also your own lawyer, a controller and a reminder for a system that usually does not move without pressure. Remember: saving a drowning person is the work of the drowning person.