ECHR rules in Ukraine's favor in claim on pension payment in ORDLO
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in Ukraine's favor in the case of a group of pensioners from Luhansk, who at the end of 2014, filed a lawsuit against the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, saying that since 2014 the government has stopped paying them pensions without any legal grounds, Ukrainian Deputy Justice Minister, Government Commissioner for the European Court of Human Rights Ivan Lischyna said.
"The court accepts the government's argument that the state could not have been reasonably obligated to comply with the decision by actions that were not clearly indicated by the court when making the decision, and that the applicants could and should have [...] brought separate claims against the relevant defendants for assertion of their rights. Moreover, it does not follow from the circumstances of the case, and the applicants do not claim that filing such claims would be an additional burden for them [...]," Lischyna said on Facebook on Thursday, cited an excerpt from the ECHR judgment.
He said the ECHR declared the complaint inadmissible, as unfounded.
"He referred, in particular, to the decisions of the courts in the second case initiated by the applicants, which denied them a complaint about unlawful inaction in the implementation of the decisions and said that the applicants did not file claims for restoration of payments to the relevant courts," Lischyna said.
The deputy justice minister said that the applicants were the group of pensioners, who lived in ORDLO and applied to the administrative courts, challenging the Ukraine's Cabinet of Ministers' resolution No. 595, which approved the "Temporary procedure for financing budgetary institutions, making social payments to the population ...," the second clause of which stopped expenditures from the national budget for social benefits in the temporarily uncontrolled territory until its return under the control of government authorities. The applicants demanded that this provision be declared unlawful and that their pension payments be restored.
"The administrative courts of three instances partially sustained this claim, declaring the second clause of the order as invalid on the grounds that the Cabinet of Ministers went beyond its powers, approving it. The courts refused to restore payments because the applicants turned to improper defendants. The decision was published in the Official Gazette," Lischyna said in the statement.
According to him, the applicants appealed to many authorities with a demand to restore pension payments on the basis of court decisions, but they were refused. They applied to the administrative courts with a claim for illegal inactivity of the executive authorities, but this claim was rejected.
The applicants complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of the first protocol (ownership) due to non-execution of the court decision in their favor.