Publication date: 15.04.2024
active and purposeful military lawyer with more than 4 years of experience
The employer's social responsibility covers
certain conditions and pension provision of former employees
The social responsibility of the employer (his legal successor) covers not only economic obligations to employees, but also contains a social and ethical component, which is an important contribution to increasing trust in society: the opinion of the Supreme Court.
In the proceedings of the Supreme Court, there was an administrative case regarding the claim of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine against the Zakarpattia regional utility company "Uzhgorod International Airport" for the collection of debt and the counterclaim for recognition of the illegal accrual of debt.
The plaintiff believes that "Uzhgorod" MA, as the legal successor, is obliged to reimburse the State PFU for the costs of paying and delivering pensions on preferential terms to an individual.
Instead, "Uzhhorod" MA pointed out the fallacy of the conclusions of the State Administration of PFU on legal succession, and therefore appealed to the court with a counterclaim to declare the calculation of actual expenses for the payment and delivery of pensions illegal.
The court of first instance satisfied the initial claim and refused to grant the counterclaim.
At the same time, the appellate court annulled the specified court decision and adopted a new one - on the refusal to satisfy the primary claim and on the satisfaction of the counterclaim.The court was guided by the fact that "Uzhgorod" MA is not the legal successor of the enterprises in matters of aviation, which employed a person included in the preferential list, and therefore the defendant in the primary claim has no obligation to reimburse the actual costs for the payment and delivery of the preferential pensions and, accordingly, the claimant's claims in the counterclaim are justified.
The position of the Supreme Court
However, the Supreme Court did not agree with such conclusions of the courts of the first and appellate instances, annulled the contested court decisions, and referred the case to the court of the first instance for a new consideration.
The conclusion was that the courts of previous instances, contrary to the principle of official clarification of the circumstances of the case, did not establish all the important conditions of the fact of legal succession of "MA "Uzhhorod" regarding obligations to reimburse expenses for the payment and delivery of preferential pensions. Instead, the courts have applied as prejudicial circumstances established in court decisions that have entered into legal force in other cases.
At the same time, the Court pointed out that in the motivational parts of the specified court decisions there are no clear conclusions regarding the fact of legal succession with reference to the relevant evidence on the basis of which it was established, and therefore came to the conclusion that the specified court decisions cannot be applied, as they contain prejudicial facts and circumstances. which by their nature should be binding on the court considering this case.
The court took into account that under the established circumstances of the case, the person to whom the State Government of PFU is paying a pension on preferential terms worked at the State Enterprise "Uzhgorod United Air Force" and the Uzhgorod Aviation Enterprise, and was dismissed from the Uzhgorod Aviation Enterprise, which was part of the Ukrainian Union of Civil Aviation aviation and SE "Ukraerorukh".
On this basis, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that, without denying the right of the person specified in the calculation of the actual costs to pay and deliver the pension, appointed in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Final Provisions of the Law of Ukraine dated July 9, 2003
No. 1058-IV "On mandatory state pension insurance", for receiving a preferential pension and regarding the existence of legally defined grounds for reimbursement of actual costs for the payment and delivery of such pensions, the main disputed issue in this case is the existence of grounds for the emergence of an obligation in "Uzhhorod" MA to reimburse the State PFU for the costs of paying and delivering the preferential pension.
The court established that the State Enterprise "Uzhhorod" MA (the legal successor of which later became "Uzhgorod" MA) was formed by separation from the composition of Universal-Avia DAP, which is the legal successor of the state enterprise "Uzhhorod United Aviation Squadron", where the person worked , which is assigned a preferential pension.
In accordance with the first and second parts of Article 109 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, separation is the transfer of part of the property, rights and obligations of a legal entity to one or more new legal entities under the distribution balance.After the decision on separation is made, the participants of the legal entity or the body that made the decision on separation draw up and approve the distribution balance sheet.
In light of this, the Court concluded that spin-off is a way of creating a new legal entity, not terminating an existing legal entity. In addition, the scope of rights and obligations transferred to the newly created legal entity is determined by the provisions of the distribution balance.
The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that in order to take measures to find out all the circumstances of the case, the courts of previous instances need to investigate and provide a legal assessment of the above-mentioned circumstances and establish the fact of the existence of DAP "Universal-Avia" as a legal entity from which the separation was carried out; to carry out a study of what rights and obligations have been transferred to the State Enterprise "Uzhgorod International Airport" (the legal successor of which later became the "Uzhgorod International Airport") according to the distribution balance as a result of its separation from the DAP "Universal-Avia" and to decide on the basis of the established circumstances a legal and well-founded decision regarding the presence/absence of MA "Uzhhorod" of the obligation to reimburse the Pension Fund for the costs of paying and delivering the pension of the relevant person.
