CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 juin 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 120 June 2009 Budina v. Russia (dec.) - 45603/05 Decision 18.6.2009 [Section I] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Alleged insufficiency of old-age pension to maintain adequate standard of living: inadmissible   The applicant was in receipt of a disability allowance. On reaching retirement age and at her request the allowance was replaced by an old-age pension. Considering the pension inadequate for her needs, she unsuccessfully sought to have it upgraded by the courts. Subsequently, she complained to the Constitutional Court that the Law on Pensions allowed pensions below the established subsistence level, but to no avail. Inadmissible : It could not be said that the State authorities had subjected the applicant to any direct ill-treatment. The essence of her complaint was that the State pension on which she depended for her subsistence and livelihood was not sufficient for her basic human needs. The Court could not exclude that State responsibility could arise for “treatment” where an applicant wholly dependent on State support found herself faced with official indifference when in a situation of serious deprivation or want incompatible with human dignity. However, even though the applicant’s income was not high in absolute terms, she had failed to substantiate her allegation that the lack of funds translated itself into concrete suffering. According to her, in 2008 her pension was enough for flat maintenance, food, and hygiene items, but not enough for clothes and other items, sanitary and cultural services, health care and hospital treatment. However, it appeared that she was in fact eligible for free medical treatment. Indeed there was no indication in the materials before the Court that the level of pension and social benefits available to the applicant were insufficient to protect her from damage to her physical or mental health or from a situation of degradation incompatible with human dignity. Therefore, even though her situation was difficult, the Court was not persuaded that in the circumstances of the present case the high threshold of Article 3 had been met: manifestly ill-founded. See also Larioshina v. Russia, no. 56869/00,and Nitecki v. Poland, no. 65653/01, in Information Note no.   41.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes