SC GC resolves conflict between the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Judiciary and Status of Judges’ and laws on the State Budget of Ukraine for the relevant year regarding determination of the amount of a judge's official salary

Starting from 2021, the laws on the State Budget of Ukraine for the respective year shall establish the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons as of 1 January of the respective calendar year, which is used to determine the basic amount of the judge's official salary in the amount of UAH 2,102.

This conclusion was reached by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in a lawsuit filed by a retired judge regarding incomplete calculation of the judge's severance pay.

In this case, on 8 February 2024, the HCJ decided to dismiss the plaintiff from the position of a judge of the High Administrative Court of Ukraine in connection with her resignation.

The plaintiff believed that the defendant had unlawfully calculated and paid her judicial remuneration, healthcare benefits and severance pay in accordance with the provisions of Law of Ukraine No. 2453-VI dated 7 July 2010 ‘On the Judiciary and Status of Judges’ (Law No. 2453-VI), rather than applying the salary of a judge of a high specialised court in accordance with Law of Ukraine No. 1402-VIII dated 2 June 2016 ‘On the Judiciary and Status of Judges’ (Law No. 1402-VIII). In her opinion, the court also unlawfully applied the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons in the amount of UAH 2,102 instead of the subsistence minimum as of 1 January of the relevant calendar year.

The courts of previous instances satisfied the claim.

At the same time, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that for judges of the High Specialised Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases, the High Commercial Court of Ukraine, the High Administrative Court of Ukraine who expressed a desire to resign, the relevant guarantees set out in paragraphs 14-3, 14-4 of Section XII ‘Final and Transitional Provisions’ of Law No. 1402-VIII shall come into effect from the moment the High Council of Justice decides on their resignation, and not from the moment the Law of Ukraine No. 3481-IX ‘On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine ’On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges‘ dated 21 November 2023 in connection with the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 2-р/2020 dated 18 February 2020 on ensuring the continuity of the administration of justice by the highest court in the judicial system of Ukraine’ comes into force.

At the time that the legal dispute arose, pursuant to clause 7 of Section XII, 'Final and Transitional Provisions', of Law No. 1402-VIII, the judicial remuneration of HACU judges was determined by Law No. 2453-VI. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 2453-VI, the defendant lawfully accrued and paid the plaintiff judicial remuneration, healthcare benefits and severance pay in connection with her resignation.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court also noted that the amount of a judge's official salary, which is an integral element of judicial remuneration, undoubtedly depends on the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, the concept of which is set out in the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Subsistence Minimum’. This Law sets out an exhaustive list of the main social and demographic groups of the population for which the subsistence minimum is determined.

At the same time, starting from 2021, the legislator, in the laws on the State Budget of Ukraine for the respective year, established the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons as of 1 January of the respective calendar year by separate provisions of these laws for the purpose of determining the basic amount of the judge's official salary in the amount of UAH 2,102.

Thus, these laws did not establish a calculation value different from the one determined by a special law for determining the amount of judicial remuneration, but actually determined this value - they established the monetary amount of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, which is used to determine the basic amount of the judge's salary.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusion of the courts of previous instances regarding the satisfaction of the claim for recognition of the HACU's actions as unlawful in terms of incomplete settlement upon dismissal and exclusion of the plaintiff from the court staff.

The link to the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 24 April 2025 in case No. 240/9028/24 will be added immediately after its publication in the USRCD.