CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 avril 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 } .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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } Published on 15 May 2023   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 44434/15 and 50631/15 Fedir Fedotovych MELNYK against Ukraine and Andriy Yevgenovych SKRYBKA against Ukraine lodged on 26 August 2015 and 28 September 2015 respectively communicated on 24 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the reduction or suspension of the applicants’ pensions following the adoption of a new legislation (Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention). Application no. 44434/15 The applicant received a state pension and worked as a private entrepreneur. According to legislation passed on 2 March 2015, pensions of working pensioners [1] were reduced by 15 percent until 31 December 2015. The applicant challenged the reduction before the domestic courts, but to no avail. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that his pension was reduced. Application no. 50631/15 The applicant received an old-age pension and worked as a civil servant. The new legislation of 2 March 2015 suspended the payment of pensions to pensioners working as civil servants. It reduced the pension of other working pensioners by 15 percent. By legislation passed on 24 December 2015, the suspension of the applicant’s pension was prolonged until 31 December 2016. Following further changes in legislation, the payment of the applicant’s pension was granted in full on 1 January 2017. Referring to Article 1 of Protocol No.1 the applicant complains that his pension was suspended. He also complains, invoking Article 14, that he was discriminated against given that his pension was suspended, but the pension of working pensioners who were not civil servants were only reduced by 15   percent. Finally, the applicant alleges that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 and Article 14 as required by Article   13 of the Convention. ​ QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions concerning both applications As regards the reduction or suspension of the applicants’ pensions, has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? Have the applicants been deprived of their 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? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants? Additional questions concerning application 50631/15 1.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his 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? 2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 as required by Article   13 of the Convention? [1] The expression “working pensioners” refers to persons who, in addition to receiving pension, were also active in a secondary professional occupation.