CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 21 July 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 19689/16 Lyudmila Ivanovna KONONENKO against Russia lodged on 8 April 2016 communicated on 30 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns legal proceedings initiated by the applicant, seeking to obtain her pension rights in Crimea before and after the Russian Federation has asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014 ( Ukraine v.   Russia ( re Crimea) (dec.) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, § 335, 16   December 2020). The applicant is a former employee of the Feodosiya City Council. She was entitled to receive an old-age civil servants’ pension in accordance with the applicable Ukrainian legislation, namely the “Law on civil service”, as confirmed by the judgment of the Sevastopol Administrative Court of Appeal of 20 May 2013 (enforceable as of 3 July 2013). Pursuant to Article 37 of the above-mentioned Law in force at the material time, the amount of pension for civil servants was set at 80 percent of their salaries. However, in the applicant’s case, due to the unavailability of relevant salary information relating to the applicant’s last held position in 2004, the Pension Fund of Ukraine, by its decision of 25 July 2013, granted her a pension equivalent to the minimum living standard (прожитковий мінімум). On 5 February 2014 the State Bailiff Service of Ukraine launched enforcement proceedings aiming to implement the outstanding decision. These proceedings were terminated due to the liquidation of the Ukrainian Pension Fund following the Russian Federation’s exercise of jurisdiction over Crimea. Subsequently, the applicant requested the “Pension Fund of the Republic of Crimea” (hereinafter – the “Crimean PF”) to grant her her pension in accordance with the aforementioned Ukrainian law and the unenforced judgment of the Ukrainian court. Her request was again refused for the same above-indicated reason. Specifically, the applicant’s former employer - the Feodosiya City Council – in their reply to the Crimean PF indicated that it was impossible to retrieve the relevant salary details, because the position she had held, just as other equivalent positions, had ceased to exist since 2010. In September 2014 the “Prosecutor’s Office in Feodosiya” filed a claim in the interest of the applicant against the refusal of the Crimean PF. The “Feodosiya City Court of the Republic of Crimea” dismissed the claim by its decision of 21 November 2014, which was then upheld by the higher courts. The final decision was given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 28 October 2015. These courts concluded that, in accordance with the applicable legal requirements, it was the applicant’s responsibility to provide the relevant salary information to enable the authorities to calculate the amount of pension she would be entitled to. In her application submitted to the Court the applicant raises a complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, alleging that the Russian authorities violated her right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions by refusing to grant her a civil servants’ pension allowance as per the Ukrainian law. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions?   2.     If so, was that interference lawful and justified within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   In particular, has the courts’ decision to dismiss the applicant’s claims on account of her failure to provide information relating to her employment in a State institution struck a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the applicant’s rights, taking also into account the principle of good governance? (see, mutatis mutandis , Plechanow v. Poland , no. 22279/04, §§ 108-11, 7   July 2009, and Romeva v. North Macedonia , no. 32141/10, §§ 54-59 and 68-72, 12 December 2019)