CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB4BC8881 { width:33.89pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA6D16A31 { width:149.77pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 50631/15 Andriy Yevgenovych SKRYBKA against Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 March 2026 as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Andreas Zünd,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   50631/15) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 28 September 2015 by a Ukrainian national, Mr Andriy Yevgenovych Skrybka (“the applicant”), who was born in 1966, lives in Okhtyrka and was represented by Mr   O.V.   Levytskyy, a lawyer practising in Kyiv; the decision to give notice of the application to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Acting Agent, Ms   Alisa-Tetiana Pietukhova; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicant received an old-age pension and worked as a civil servant. His pension amounted to 1,869.33 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) [1] per month, while his salary amounted to UAH 1,654.90 [2] per month. 2 .     The minimum monthly income needed for subsistence in Ukraine, for persons over the age of 18 able to work, increased gradually from UAH   1,218 on 1 January 2015 to UAH 1,600 on 31 December 2016. The applicant’s salary was therefore higher than the minimum income for subsistence. 3.     The new legislation, Law no. 213-VIII, of 2 March 2015 (entered into force on 1 April 2015) suspended, until 31 December 2015, the payment of pensions to pensioners working as civil servants and reduced the pensions of other working pensioners by 15%. 4 .     On 18 August 2016 the applicant informed the Court that through Law no. 911-VIII passed on 24 December 2015 (entered into force on 1   January 2016), the suspension of his pension was extended until 31   December 2016. 5.     Following further changes in legislation, the disbursement of the applicant’s pension was resumed on 1 January 2017. 6.     The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that he had had no right to challenge the law suspending his pension before the Constitutional Court or the administrative courts. He further complained under Article 8 of the Convention that reduction of his income negatively impacted his family life. Referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant complained that the suspension of his pension had been unlawful because Law no. 213-VIII had been contrary to the Constitution. He also complained, relying on Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, that he had been discriminated against, given that his pension had been suspended, but the pensions of working pensioners who were not civil servants had only been reduced by 15%. He also alleged that the President, forty-five Parliamentarians, the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman and the Parliament of Crimea could challenge a law before the Constitutional Court, but he could not. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 7.     The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of any case before it (see, among many other authorities, Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§   114   and 126, 20 March 2018), considers that the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 fall to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 of the Convention, respectively. 8.     The Government submitted that the applicant had not instituted judicial proceedings before administrative courts against the Pension Fund challenging the suspension of his pension. He had therefore not exhausted domestic remedies which had been available to him. 9.     They further submitted that the suspension of the applicant’s pension had had a legal basis, had been justified because it had served a public interest and had been proportionate to the aims pursued. The Government pointed out that at the beginning of 2015 the economic situation in Ukraine had quickly deteriorated because of the escalation of military conflict in the east of the country. The law suspending the applicant’s pension had been introduced to stabilise the economic situation. Moreover, the suspension had been temporary in nature and the applicant had not been precluded from leaving his civil service job or seeking employment in the private sector if he had wished to receive his pension. The Government finally stated that the applicant’s situation had not been comparable to that of pensioners working for private organisations and for that reason it cannot be said that the applicant had been discriminated against. 10.     The Court notes at the outset that it does not need to rule on the preliminary objection raised by the Government because the complaints are inadmissible in any event for the reasons indicated below. 11.     It observes that in his application lodged on 28   September 2015 the applicant complained that by Law no. 213-VIII which entered into force on 1   April 2015 his pension had been suspended until 31 December 2015. On 18   August 2016 he informed the Court that that through Law no.   911-VIII passed on 24 December 2015 (entered into force on 1 January 2016), the suspension of his pension had been extended until 31 December 2016. 12.     The Court has previously found in a number of cases that in the Ukrainian legal system the domestic courts did not provide an individual with a right to override a statutory provision and that, accordingly, the six‑month period commenced from the day on which the relevant legislative amendments entered into force (see, among other authorities, Charnomskyy v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 13417/16, §§ 13-21, 20 February 2018 with further references). 13 .     In the present case, the Court considers that as the relevant laws entered into force on 1   April 2015 and 1 January 2016 respectively, these dates are to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the six-month period within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Charnomskyy , cited above, § 14). Since the applicant submitted his complaint concerning Law no.   911-VIII more than six months after 1   January 2016 (see paragraph 4 above), this complaint must be rejected as lodged out of time, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 14. As regards the suspension of the applicant’s pension from 1 April to 31   December 2015 on the basis of Law no. 213-VIII, the Court notes that the parties did not dispute that this measure constituted an interference with the applicant’s property rights withing the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. 15.     The Court further notes that there is no evidence that Law no. 213 ‑ VIII was introduced under a procedure that was unlawful or that it lacked accessibility and foreseeability. It considers that the requirement of lawfulness was met (see, for example, Velikoda   v.   Ukraine   (dec.) no.   43331/12 , § 27, 3 June 2014). 16.     The Court observes that the suspension of the applicant’s pension was apparently made as a result of economic policy considerations and the financial difficulties faced by the State. It further observes that while the disbursement of his pension was suspended, the applicant continued working as a civil servant and receiving his salary which was above the minimum income for subsistence (see paragraph 2 above). 17.   In the absence of any evidence to the contrary and acknowledging that the respondent State possesses a wide margin of appreciation in balancing the rights at stake in relation to economic policies, the Court considers that such suspension could not be said to have been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued or that it put an excessive burden on the applicant (see, for example, Velikoda, cited above, § 28). 18.     In view of the above, this part of the application is manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 19.     As for the applicant’s reference to Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers that the applicant was not in a relevantly similar situation to pensioners who were not civil servants (see Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13, § 133, 5   September 2017). 20.     In so far as the applicant complained that he had had no right to challenge the law suspending his pension before the Constitutional Court or the administrative courts, the Court recalls that Article 6 of the Convention does not guarantee a right of access to a court with power to invalidate or override a law enacted by the legislature (see Buzoianu v. Romania , no.   44595/15, §   41, 2 November 2021). Moreover, the Court observes that Article 13 of the Convention does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State’s laws as such to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention or to equivalent domestic legal norms (see STEAG GMBH v. Germany , no. 10857/21, § 21, 11 April 2023). The Court adds that the applicant was not in a relevantly similar situation to state bodies or officials. 21.     It follows that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 26 March 2026.     Martina Keller   María Elósegui   Deputy Registrar   President [1] Approximately 81 euros (EUR) [2] Approximately EUR 72