CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mai 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sDA1CA8BF { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; line-height:200% }   Communicated on 4 May 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 68188/13 Valentīna VOROTŅIKOVA against Latvia lodged on 28 October 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Ms Valentīna Vorotņikova, is a Latvian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Riga. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 18 January 2011 the applicant applied for an early retirement pension on the grounds that she had cared for a disabled child until his death at the age of seven. On 6 June 2011 the State Social Insurance Agency, an institution which operated under the auspices of the Ministry of Welfare, refused the pension on the grounds that the applicant had not proved that the child she had cared for had been given disability status. In addition, the requirement set out in section 11 of the Law on State Pensions that a disabled child had to have been cared for until the age of eight had not been met. 4.     The applicant challenged the decision of the State Social Insurance Agency before the administrative courts. On 24 May 2012 an Administrative District Court found that the child the applicant had cared for had had disability status. Accordingly, the court concluded that the applicant had cared for a child who had been declared disabled prior to reaching the age of eight. The Administrative District Court considered that this fact satisfied the requirements of section 11 of the Law on State Pensions. Hence, it found that the applicant was entitled to the early retirement pension. 5.     On 3 December 2012 the Administrative Regional Court reversed the ruling of the Administrative District Court. It agreed that the child the applicant had cared for had had disability status. Nonetheless, it considered that section 11 of the Law on State Pensions required that a disabled child had to have been cared for until she or he had reached the age of eight. 6.     The applicant filed an appeal on points of law, inter alia , arguing that section   11 of the Law on State Pensions had been interpreted wrongly. On 20 February 2013 the Senate of the Supreme Court wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Committee on Social and Labour Matters ( Saeimas Sociālo un darba lietu komisija ), the Ministry of Welfare, and the Ombudsperson, asking their opinion as to the correct interpretation of section 11 of the Law on State Pensions. All three institutions expressed the opinion that the legal provision referred to the time period a disabled child had been cared for, and hence required that the child had reached the age of eight. 7.     According to the applicant, the responses of the three institutions were not sent to the parties to the case. Nonetheless, the applicant learned of them when she consulted the case file. On 11 March 2013 she filed her comments on the opinions. In a letter of 14 March 2013 the Senate of the Supreme Court returned the applicant’s comments to her and noted that they could not be added to the case file, as the Administrative Procedure Law did not provide for the possibility to submit   additional observations on the opinions expressed by State institutions which were not parties to the case. 8.     On 7 May 2013 the Senate of the Supreme Court, having considered the case in written proceedings, ruled that section 11 of the Law on State Pensions, as in force at the relevant time, had required that a disabled child had to have reached the age of eight. Hence, the applicant had no right to the early retirement pension. B.     Relevant domestic law 9.     At the relevant time, section 11(1) of the Law on State Pensions provided that persons who had reached the age of sixty-two, and who had been making social insurance contributions for at least ten years, were entitled to a retirement pension. Section 11(4) of the same Law provided that persons who had been making social insurance contributions for at least thirty years, and who had cared for five or more children or for a disabled child until their reaching the age of eight, had a right to request the retirement pension five years earlier. COMPLAINT 10.     The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that her case was decided on the basis of evidence that the Senate of the Supreme Court acquired unlawfully and which was not sent to the parties to the case. Moreover, her comments on the evidence were not added to the case file.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:   a) What were the legal grounds for the Senate of the Supreme Court asking the State institutions to express their opinion on the interpretation of the applicable legal provision, and what were the legal grounds for refusing to add the applicant’s comments to the case file? The Government are invited to submit relevant case-law examples.   b) Was the applicant’s right to adversarial proceedings respected?