CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 octobre 2006

.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. 90 October 2006 Vassilevski v. Latvia (dec.) - 73485/01 Decision 5.10.2006 [Section III] Article 14 Discrimination Denial, on the basis of nationality, of entitlement to a pension in respect of years worked abroad: admissible   The applicant is a Russian national who has lived in Latvia since 1986, after working for almost thirty years in China and Uzbekistan. He worked for over ten years in Latvia, partly for a company which had its registered office outside the country. In August 1991 Latvia regained its independence. After the break-up of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 the applicant, who had become stateless, applied for and obtained citizenship of the Russian Federation. On reaching retirement age in 1998 he applied for a retirement pension in Latvia. The Latvian authorities subsequently recognised his entitlement to a pension only in respect of the time worked in Latvia, without counting the period of many years when he had worked in China and Uzbekistan, in accordance with section 1 of the transitional provisions of the State Pensions Act adopted following Latvian independence. The applicant complained that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his nationality, since the law stated that periods worked outside Latvia could be taken into consideration only for Latvian nationals. The Latvian courts dismissed the applicant’s appeals, finding that the law had been applied correctly. Admissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14.   © 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