CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2023

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 20 March 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 62341/16 Natalia Ivanivna MARUSHCHAK against Ukraine lodged on 22 October 2016 communicated on 2 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the suspension of the applicant’s pension (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The applicant was receiving a pension while working as an editor in chief of a municipal newspaper. The new legislation which entered into force on 1 April 2015 suspended the payment of pensions to persons who worked as civil servants and reduced the pension of other working pensioners by 15 percent. The applicant instituted judicial proceedings stating that she was not a civil servant, and that the suspension was not applicable to her. However, the courts rejected her claims, noting that, according to the legislation, her position was considered to be that of a civil servant for the purposes of allocating a pension (final decision on 27 April 2016 by the Higher Administrative Court). The payment of the applicant’s pension was eventually resumed on 30 April 2016 following further changes in legislation on working pensioners. Referring to Article 1 of Protocol No.1, the applicant complains that her pension was suspended. Invoking Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1, she also considers that she was discriminated against given that her pension was suspended, but the pension of working pensioners who were not civil servants was only reduced by 15   percent. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In so far as the suspension of the applicant’s pension is concerned, has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? Has the applicant been deprived of her possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Khoniakina v. Georgia , no. 17767/08, § 72, 19 June 2012)?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights on the ground of her status of a pensioner working as a civil servant, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?