CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 février 2026

.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 23 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 17183/19 Sergiy Ivanovych LEKAR against Ukraine lodged on 18 March 2019 communicated on 5 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the loss by the applicant, following legislative amendments, of a statutory pre-retirement social benefit which he used to receive as a former civil servant. Upon his resignation from the Ministry of the Interior in March 2014, the applicant was granted a monthly pre-retirement social benefit equivalent to 85% of his previous salary, which could be granted under section   31(4) of the Civil Service Act of 1993 to certain categories of former civil servants with a sufficient number of years of service. The benefit was in principle payable until its beneficiaries either reached the statutory pension age or found gainful employment. The applicant stopped receiving the benefit following its repeal by Law   No.   76-VIII which entered into force on 1 January 2015. The applicant instituted administrative proceedings against the Ministry of the Interior arguing, inter alia , that the legislative amendments in question should not have applied retrospectively to benefits granted before 1 January 2015. While the first-instance court and the court of appeal found in the applicant’s favour, the Supreme Court overturned their rulings in its decision of 19 September 2018 and dismissed the applicant’s claim. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that the removal of the social benefit has been unlawful and disproportionate, and that the proceedings before the Supreme Court were unfair in view of its failure to address his pertinent arguments. The applicant also invokes Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In the affirmative, has that interference been in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, and, if so, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 123-26, 13 December 2016; Kjartan Ásmundsson v.   Iceland , no. 60669/00, §§ 39-45, ECHR 2004-IX; Lakićević and Others v.   Montenegro and Serbia , nos. 27458/06 and 3   others, §§ 59-63 and 70-73, 13 December 2011; and compare with Khoniakina v. Georgia , no. 17767/08, §§ 76-80, 19 June 2012)?   2.     In respect of the applicant’s complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, namely the alleged failure by the Supreme Court to address his arguments, and under Article 13 of the Convention, do they disclose a violation of these provisions, as alleged by the applicant?