CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mai 2025

.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 2 June 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 64293/12 Pavel Alekseyevich POZDNYAKOV against Ukraine lodged on 28 September 2012 communicated on 13 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint about the State’s failure to comply with a court judgment and refusal of domestic courts to examine the applicant’s complaint in this respect on the merits. The applicant lived in Krasnodon (Luhansk Region) and received a pension from a local branch of the State Pension Fund (“SPF”). On 9 February 2011 the Krasnodon Court ordered the Krasnodon Branch of the SPF to pay him a higher pension. In September 2011 the applicant moved to Myrgorod (Poltava Region) permanently and the Myrgorod Branch of the SPF became responsible for paying his pension. As of 1 October 2011, the applicant began to receive the amount of pension which he had been receiving prior to the decision of the Krasnodon Court of 9   February 2011. In 2012 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Myrgorod Court, complaining that he was no longer receiving the amount of pension as recalculated according to the decision of 9 February 2011. On 2 April 2012 the Myrgorod Court ruled in favour of the applicant. On 2 July 2012 the Kharkiv District Administrative Court, upon an appeal lodged by the SPF, quashed that decision and terminated the proceedings in the applicant’s case. The court of appeal noted that the applicant’s claims concerning recalculation of his pension had already been resolved by the Krasnodon Court’s judgment of 9 February 2011. The decision of 2 July 2012 was not subject to appeal. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that the decision of 9 February 2011 was enforced only until 1 October 2011. He also complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the Kharkiv District Administrative Court refused to consider his claims on the merits and that he had no effective remedy against the non ‑ enforcement of the judgment of 9 February 2011. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the fact that the decision in the applicant’s favour was only enforced until 1 October 2011 compatible with his right to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Burdov v. Russia , no.   59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002 ‑ III)?   2.     Was the fact that on 2 July 2012 the Kharkiv District Administrative Court terminated proceedings in the applicant’s case without considering his claims on the merits compatible with the applicant’s right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been an unjustified interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, in view of the fact that the decision in the applicant’s favour was executed only until 1 October 2011?   4.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy against the non ‑ enforcement of the court judgment in his favour, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?