Andreeva v. Latvia (55707/00) - case before the European Court of Human Rights .
Content
Circumstances
The non-citizens of Latvia N. Andreeva were not counted as years by the Latvian authorities in the years of work that were worked out during the Soviet era at a union-controlled enterprise located in Latvia. Citizens of Latvia, according to the law "On State Pensions", such periods in the pensionable service were counted.
The complaint to the ECHR was filed in 2000 and only in 2006 was declared admissible, in 2007 it was transferred to the Grand Chamber, which in 2008 held hearings on the case. The applicant was represented in court by the members of the LCHR A. Dimitrov and V. Buzaev .
During the consideration of the Strasbourg case, the Constitutional Court of Latvia considered the application of the Seimas deputies from the FHRTU and LSDRP to the relevant provision of the law, but did not see violations in the law [1] .
Court ruling
On 18 February 2009, the Grand Chamber of the ECHR recognized by a vote of 16 votes to 1 (Latvian judge I. Ziemele) that Article 14 of the ECHR (prohibition of discrimination ) was violated in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to property). The court also recognized (unanimously) Article 6 of the ECHR violated in the course of Latvian proceedings, since the Supreme Court session began earlier than the appointed time and therefore took place without Andreeva’s participation. This decision was the third decision on the merits of the Grand Chamber in the proceedings against Latvia (after the cases of Slivenko and Zhdanok ).
The applicant was awarded compensation in the amount of 6,500 euros (including 1,500 euros - legal costs).
Execution of court decision
N. Andreeva was paid the amount awarded by the ECHR, but the pension was not recalculated. In October 2009, Andreeva filed a lawsuit for recalculation of her pension [2] , but in April 2010 she died [3] .
As of January 2015, the second sentence of paragraph 1 of the Transitional Rules to the Law on State Pensions, applied in the Andreeva case, has not changed (amendments to it were considered as early as 2009, but were postponed [4] ). In February 2011, the Constitutional Court of Latvia rejected a complaint of a number of non-citizens against this item [5] . The group of non-citizens who submitted to the Constitutional Court in August 2011 filed a new complaint to the ECHR [6] .
In 2012, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance published a report on Latvia, in which it stated that “the decision of the Constitutional Court, at best, gives a very narrow interpretation of the decision on the Andreeva case”, and that the lack of settlement for non-citizens who worked in those republics of the former USSR, with which Latvia does not have an agreement on the accrual of pensions, “according to the decision of the ECHR in the Andreeva case, is discrimination” [7] .
In 2013, the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities expressed “regret that the 2009 decision in the Andreeva case did not completely resolve the issue of calculating pensions for citizens and non-citizens” and “noted with interest the reports on the registration of a new case on settlement pensions in the European Court of Human Rights after the Constitutional Court rejected in February 2011 the complaints of five “non-citizens” to the relevant provisions of the Law “On State Pensions” ” [8] .
Notes
- ↑ Decision of the Latvian Constitutional Court on case No. 2001-02-0106
- ↑ Buzaev V. The court congratulated Natalia Andreeva on the day of the liberation of Riga
- Пенсион A pensioner who won in the ECHR case against Latvia has passed away (Inaccessible link) . The appeal date is May 6, 2016. Archived June 5, 2016.
- ↑ The Seimas has postponed amendments to the law "On pensions" DELFI 08.12.2009
- ↑ Decision of the Latvian Constitutional Court in case No. 2010-20-0106
- ↑ European Court of Human Rights accepted the claim of non-citizens against Latvia
- ↑ Fourth ECRI report on Latvia, 2012 (English) (Latvian) Pct. 130.-131.
- ↑ ACFC / OP / II (2013) 001 - Para. 139 (English)
Links
- Decision on admissibility (English)
- Court statement
- Press release on the court decision (eng.)
- Video of the hearings (eng.)
- The answer of the Ministry of Welfare to the deputy question about the consequences of the ECHR ruling (Latvian.)
- Buzaev V. V. Iliad and Odyssey in one volume. The case of "Andreeva v. Latvia" IMHOclub, 2014