CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 juillet 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Published on 16 August 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 61802/13 Valentyn Oleksandrovych REVENKO against Ukraine lodged on 27 September 2013 communicated on 27 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application mainly concerns the State’s refusal to pay the applicant an old-age pension on the ground that he is living abroad. The applicant is a Ukrainian citizen who was born in 1937. He lived and worked in Ukraine until August 1991 when he moved to Israel for permanent residence. In 2012 the applicant requested the State Pension Fund of Ukraine to allocate him an old-age pension because he had worked in Ukraine for about thirty-five years before moving to Israel. The request was refused. On 28 March 2013 a first instance court, upon the applicant’s complaint, ordered the Pension Fund to allocate the applicant an old-age pension. The Pension Fund appealed. The applicant’s representative submitted his comments on the appeal. He noted, in particular, that the Constitution guaranteed a right to pension (Article 46 of the Constitution) and also stipulated that all citizens were equal and could not be discriminated against based, in particular, on their place of residence (Article 24 of the Constitution). On 28 March 2012 the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal, in the absence of both parties to the dispute, quashed the decision of the first instance court and found against the applicant on the ground that, according to the legislation, a pension could not be allocated to persons permanently residing abroad. This decision became final. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol 1 in conjunction with Article 14 that he was discriminated against based on his place of residence. He also complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the court of appeal found against him and that it did not apply the provision of the Constitution which stipulated that citizens cannot be discriminated against based on their place of residence.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his place of residence, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1?