The pension fund canceled the disability, obliging the husband to return 37,948 hryvnias: the court’s verdict.

The PFU insists on the return of the husband’s excessively transferred pension in the amount of 37,948 hryvnias in connection with the cancellation of the III group of disability

The pension was paid to the husband stopped due to cancellation of the III group of disability. He was overpaid pension funds in the amount of 37,948 hryvnias, which the PFU demands to be returned. This is stated in the decision of the Slobid District Court of the city of Kharkiv, published on January 20, 2026.

The man was registered and received pension payments for disability of the III group from 02/07/2024, appointed in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Mandatory State Pension Security” dated 07/09/2003 No. 1058-IV based on an extract from the report of the examination by the medical and social expert commission dated 02/07/2024, issued by the district Slobidska medical and social expert commission of Kharkiv. By the decision of the pension transfer department No. 2 of the pension provision, provision of insurance payments, social services, housing subsidies and benefits of the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region dated 03.04.2025, the transfer of the disability pension to him was stopped in accordance with paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs 1, 5 of article 49 of Law No. 1058 on the basis of a certificate provided by the Kharkiv regional administration by the Department of Health Regional center of medical and social examination dated 12.26.2024 on recognition of him as a person without disability. In a letter dated March 17, 2025, he was informed that the transfer of the pension was suspended in connection with the withdrawal of the III group of disability. In connection with the annulment of the certificate, for the period from 02/07/2024 to 02/28/2025, pension payments in the amount of 37,948 hryvnias were over-transferred, so he was offered to deposit these funds into the account of the Pension Fund of Ukraine as an over-transferred pension. Since he did not voluntarily reimburse the mentioned funds, the PFU filed a lawsuit to the court for their return in a compulsory manner.

What decision did the court make? The court rejected the claim of PFU. In the course of the case, proper and admissible evidence was not presented to confirm the facts of the husband’s submission to the PFU authorities of deliberately false documents, which became the basis for the appointment of pension payments, as well as abuse on his part, or his dishonesty.

“In the statement of claim, the plaintiff stated that in connection with the receipt by the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in the Kharkiv region of the certificate issued by the Kharkiv Regional Administration, the Department of Health Protection, the Regional Center of Medical and Social Expertise No. 93 dated 12.26.2024, about the non-recognition of the defendant as of 02.07.2024 as a person with a disability of the IIIrd group, the decision of The transfer of pension payments to the defendant was stopped on 03/04/2025. The amount of excess pension payments transferred to the defendant for the period from 02/07/2024 to 02/28/2025 was 37,948 hryvnias. bodies of the Pension Fund of Ukraine knowingly false documents, which became the basis for the appointment of pension payments, as well as abuse on the part of the defendant, or his dishonesty. In order to correctly resolve the issue of withholding of excessively paid amounts of pension payments, the authority that has the authority to assign pension payments should have undoubtedly established the fact of overpayment of pension payments in connection with the submission of unreliable information, which is taken into account in its calculation, and through whose fault the amounts of social benefits were calculated in an amount that contradicts the requirements of the Law. The case materials do not contain information, and the plaintiff did not provide adequate and admissible evidence to confirm that the decision on the appointment of pension payments and the fact of the excess of the transferred pension was made as a result of actions of the defendant, which would contain signs of abuse or were in bad faith by their nature, and therefore, the paid pension payments were not are subject to return. Taking into account the above, the court came to the conclusion that there are no grounds for satisfying the claims,” the court emphasized.