CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 janvier 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 January 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 7421/17 TRADE UNION OF THE CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR POWER PLANT against Ukraine lodged on 21 December 2016 communicated on 8 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the obligation of the applicant trade union to compensate the Pension Fund of Ukraine for the costs of pension payments to its employees. On 26 October 2016 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine upheld the judgments of the lower courts requiring the applicant trade union to pay the Pension Fund 84,816.40 Ukrainian hryvnias (the equivalent of around 3,000   euros at the material time) to cover the costs of early retirement pensions of five of its employees ( «фактичні витрати на виплату і доставку пільгових пенсій») . The domestic courts relied, in particular, on paragraph   2 of the transitional provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance” (“the State Pension Act”) which set out an obligation for all legal entities employing workers in hard labour or hazardous environments to fund their early retirement pensions until they are eligible for old-age pensions. During the domestic proceedings the applicant trade union unsuccessfully argued that the impugned payments should have been covered by the State budget. It specifically referred to the third indent of subparagraph   1 of paragraph 2 of the transitional provisions of the State Pension Act. This provision stated that until a special law on corporate and professional funds is enacted, the pension payment compensation procedure that was in place before the State Pension Act came into force should continue to apply. The applicant trade union maintained that under this procedure it was not required to provide compensation. The applicant trade union complains under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that the imposition of the obligation to pay the impugned costs was unlawful. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the interference with the applicant trade union’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions in compliance with the requirements of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? In particular, was that interference lawful? Regard being had to the proceedings in the present case, the parties are specifically invited to comment on whether paragraph 2 of the transitional provisions to the State Pension Act (as in force during the material time), including the third indent of its subparagraph 1, was clear and foreseeable in its application.