{"id":83530,"date":"2026-04-15T09:27:08","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T07:27:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/?p=83530"},"modified":"2026-04-17T14:19:54","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T12:19:54","slug":"the-extraordinary-valorization-of-pensions-pursuant-to-the-provisions-of-section-82-paragraph-2-and-section-293fzc-of-the-social-insurance-act-does-not-apply-to-retirement-pensions-of-police-officers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/the-extraordinary-valorization-of-pensions-pursuant-to-the-provisions-of-section-82-paragraph-2-and-section-293fzc-of-the-social-insurance-act-does-not-apply-to-retirement-pensions-of-police-officers\/","title":{"rendered":"The extraordinary valorization of pensions pursuant to the provisions of Section 82 paragraph 2 and Section 293fzc of the Social Insurance Act does not apply to retirement pensions of police officers and soldiers"},"content":{"rendered":"

On November 25, 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, by judgment case file no. 7Ssk\/64\/2025, dismissed the cassation complaint of a former police officer against the judgment of the Administrative Court in Ko\u0161ice (hereinafter referred to as the \u201cAdministrative Court\u201d) regarding the increase in retirement pension. The Supreme Administrative Court stated that when calculating the valorization of retirement pension, the rules arising from the provisions of Section 68 of Act No. 328\/2002 on social security of police officers and soldiers and on amendments and supplements to certain acts, as amended (hereinafter referred to as \u201cAct No. 328\/2002\u201d) will be applied in connection with the provisions of Section 82, paragraph 1, letter a) of Act No. 461\/2003 on social insurance as amended (hereinafter referred to as the “Social Insurance Act”). The extraordinary valorization of pensions pursuant to the provisions of Section 82, paragraph 2 and the transitional provision of Section 293fzc of Act No. 461\/2003 applies only to pensions in the civil sphere.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as the \u201cMinistry of the Interior\u201d) increased the retirement pension of a former police officer from the amount of EUR 637.44 per month to the amount of EUR 712.66 per month, i.e. by 11.8%. The former police officer was convinced that in addition to this amount, his retirement pension should have been increased by another 10.6% under the Social Insurance Act under the so-called extraordinary valorization. According to the Ministry of the Interior, the legal regulation of valorization, i.e. the increase in retirement benefits awarded and paid from the special social security system for police officers and soldiers under Act No. 328\/2002, is not set up in such a way as to reflect the extraordinary changes implemented in connection with the valorization of pension benefits awarded and paid from the general social insurance system. The Ministry of the Interior disagreed with the former police officer’s objection of discrimination, explaining that the systems under the Social Insurance Act and Act No. 328\/2002 are separate for recipients of retirement pensions.<\/p>\n

The Court of Cassation examined the judgment of the Administrative Court, which dismissed the action of a former police officer against the Ministry of the Interior. The Administrative Court decided that, given the autonomy of the retirement pension system, the special system does not have to automatically copy the general pension insurance system and the extraordinary changes made to it in every respect. The Administrative Court did not consider the non-inclusion of retirement pensioners in the system of the so-called extraordinary valorization under Section 293fzc of the Social Insurance Act to be a gap in the law and, according to it, it did not constitute a violation of the legal certainty of the former police officer. Since Act No. 328\/2002 does not contain provisions that would allow for the equivalent implementation of the so-called extraordinary valorization, the legal position of a former police officer compared to old-age pensioners under the current legal regulation is different. The differences in Section 68 of Act No. 328\/2002 compared to Section 82 of the Social Insurance Act are significant and could not have given the former police officer a legitimate hope of an increase in his retirement pension.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Administrative Court dealt with an identical legal issue as in the present case in its judgment, case file no. 7Ssk\/27\/2025, dated 26 June 2025. It defined that \u201calthough the purpose of Act No. 80\/2013 in amending Section 68 of Act No. 328\/2002 was to approximate the valorization of retirement benefits and pension benefits, it was not its purpose for this valorization to be the same. \u2026 In other words, it cannot be claimed that every change in the valorization mechanism in this Act should automatically be copied by a change in this mechanism for retirement benefits.\u201d The Court of Cassation recalled that “the content and purpose of the “extraordinary valorization” according to the amended provision of Section 82 of Act No. 461\/2003 effective from 1 January 2024 is that in the event of significant month-on-month inflation (more than 5%) it should not be expected to be reflected in an increase in the pension benefit until 1 January of the next calendar year, but that it should be reflected in an increase earlier.\u2026 The aim of the extraordinary valorization is not to additionally increase pension benefits, but to spread their increase more evenly over the course of a calendar year with high inflation. Together with the cited amendment, which entered into force on 1 January 2024, a transitional provision, Section 293fzc, was added to Act No. 461\/2003, which entered into force on 1 July 2023 (cf. Article VII of Act No. 210\/2023). According to it, pension benefits paid as of 1 July 2023 were to be (extraordinarily) increased if the cumulative month-on-month growth in consumer prices for pensioner households exceeded five percent for the period from 1 July 2022 to 31 March 2023, by a percentage of this growth. This transitional provision has thus introduced the mechanism, envisaged in Section 82, paragraph 2 of Act No. 461\/2003, from 1 January 2024, as of 1 July 2023.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the Court of Cassation, the administrative court correctly identified that the essence of the case is the interpretation of the provision of Section 68, paragraph 16 of Act No. 328\/2002, particularly its connection to the mechanism of valorization of pension benefits under Section 82 of the Social Insurance Act. It then clearly explained why, when increasing retirement benefits, only the percentage of increase determined for the calendar year is considered, and not the percentage of increase determined based on month-to-month inflation under Section 82, paragraph 2 of the Social Insurance Act. According to the Court of Cassation, the administrative court also clearly dealt with the alleged discrimination when it referred to principled independence and separation of the social insurance system and retirement benefits.<\/p>\n

For the above reasons, the Court of Cassation assessed that there was no legal basis for the cassation complaint within the meaning of Section 440 of the Code of Administrative Procedure and dismissed it pursuant to Section 461 of the Code of Administrative Procedure.<\/p>\n

This judgment was adopted by the Supreme Administrative Court unanimously; no appeal is admissible against it.<\/p>\n

This was decided by Panel No. 7 of the Supreme Administrative Court, composed of: President of the Panel JUDr. Jana Martin\u010dekov\u00e1 and members of the Panel Mgr. Michal Novotn\u00fd and JUDr. Martin Tiso.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On November 25, 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Slovak Republic, by judgment case file no. 7Ssk\/64\/2025, dismissed the cassation complaint of a former police officer against the judgment of the Administrative Court in Ko\u0161ice (hereinafter referred to as the \u201cAdministrative Court\u201d) regarding the increase in retirement pension. The Supreme Administrative Court stated that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":103,"featured_media":49383,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[73,79,82],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-press-release","category-cassation-decisions","category-administrative-agenda"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83530","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/103"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=83530"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83530\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":84760,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83530\/revisions\/84760"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/49383"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nssud.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}