Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
🗝🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡
Pasha Emilovych finally received his pension. Let the grandmothers wait.
In the “12 chairs” there was a social welfare house where, alongside elderly women, 5 young men made themselves quite comfortable: Pasha Emilovych and the four brothers of the caretaker Alkhen. The oldest, Pasha, was 32, and once he ate 2 kg of sprats, leaving the whole house without lunch.
The satire here isn’t even about appetite. It’s about an order in which the institution exists for some people, while very different people feel best in it. And this is the scene you want to recall when reading about Ukrainian prosecutors’ pensions. Not because every recipient stole something, but because the legality of a privilege does not make it fair.
How many people are at this table
According to data published by “EP,” in 2025 prosecutors received length-of-service pensions: 5 739 prosecutors, of whom 2 262 continued to work, and among those working 1 150 had not yet reached 50 years. The average age at which prosecutors retired on length-of-service grounds was 47 years. The most outrageous example is former Mykolaiv regional prosecutor Dmytro Kazak. He received a pension at 29 (!) years.
More than two thousand working pension recipients from the prosecutorial ranks already force us to talk about rules, not exceptions.
Do not ascribe to these people illnesses we do not know about, or crimes that no one has proven.
⚙️ It’s enough to ask a simple question: why for some does working age mean the need to earn a living, while for others it also allows them to receive special pension benefits?
Current rules provide a prosecutors’ length-of-service pension regardless of age if the required service record is met, and its base amount is 60% of the corresponding monthly salary. This isn’t a secret loophole: the state doesn’t even need to look the other way, because it wrote these rules itself. How this service is “credited,” you can see in administrative courts.
Now imagine a different table. On it is a utility bill, a grocery list, and not enough money to cover both. It’s particularly awkward to explain the benefits of special pension provisions to the person at that table.
The arithmetic isn’t literary
In the Pension Fund’s report for 2025, for the line of pensions under the Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office,” in the portion financed from the budget alone, more than 1,53 billion UAH is indicated. According to a Forbes report from 4 September 2026, Finance Minister Serhiy Marchenko preliminarily estimated the uncovered need for external budget financing for 2027-th at 32,6 billion dollars, and that is precisely a financing need, not an identical measure to the budget deficit.
Abolishing some privileges won’t close the hole. But scale cannot be an excuse. Responsibility doesn’t begin with the words “we still won’t have enough.” It begins with the question: what exactly are we paying for and why?
Parliamentary lunch break
Bill No. 12278 on prosecutors’ pension provision is still awaiting 2 reading, even though the relevant committee already on 30 June 2025 recommended adopting it in the second reading and in full. A date for the entry into force of the main provisions even remains: 1 January 2026. It’s hard to find a more telling illustration of procrastination.
The prepared draft introduces age conditions with a transition for older generations, ties payment of the special pension to dismissal from prosecutorial positions, but allows receiving it while working in other positions. This is not a repeal of all special pensions and not a universal ban on combining a pension with salary.
The Main Legal Department noted, among other things, risks to the principles of equality and rights protection, while permitting adoption of the draft in 2 reading taking into account the comments. These provisions and the outdated dates need fixing, and turning revisions into an open-ended alibi is unacceptable.
The draft needs to be finalized and adopted as soon as possible. Out of respect for people who have the right to ask why their social justice is so selective. Let’s return to that cafeteria. The problem isn’t just that Pasha Emilovych and Co. were found at the table. The problem is the institution’s managers, who see who gets the meal and are in no hurry to change the order. You can explain to the grandmothers as much as you like that they must be patient. But the parliamentary lunch break should not last at their expense.
💬 ABleaks_bot
💕 Join
Telegram publication
