CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 25 juin 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   473 25.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING ANDREJEVA v. LATVIA   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 25 June 2008 at 9 a.m. , in the case of Andrejeva v. Latvia (application no.   55707/00).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   The applicant   The applicant, Natālija Andrejeva, was born in 1942 and lives in Riga (Latvia). She has lived in Latvia for 54   years and, previously a national of the former USSR, currently has the status of a permanently resident non-citizen ( nepilsone ) of Latvia. Now retired, she was employed in a recycling plant at Olaine chemical complex, formerly a public body under the authority of the USSR’s Ministry for the Chemical Industry. The complex is situated in what was USSR territory and is now Latvian territory following the restoration in August 1991 of Latvian independence.   Summary of the facts   The case concerns, in particular, the applicant’s complaint that application of the transitional provisions of the Latvia State Pensions Act in her case has deprived her of pension entitlements in respect of 17   years’ employment.   The applicant first entered Latvian territory in 1954, at the age of   12, at a time when it   was part of the Soviet Union . She has been a permanent resident ever since. She started her job at the Olaine chemical complex in 1966. In 1973 she was assigned to the regional division of the Environmental Protection Monitoring Department of the USSR’s Ministry for the Chemical Industry and, until 1981, was under the authority of a State-run company, with its head office in Kiev. She was subsequently placed under the authority of a subdivision of the same company, which was subordinate to a division with its head office in Moscow. Although the applicant’s salary was paid by post-office giro transfer, initially from Kiev and then from Moscow, her successive reassignments did not entail any significant change in her working conditions, as she continued her duties at the Olaine recycling plant.   Following the declaration of Latvia’s independence, on 21   November 1990 the Environmental Protection Monitoring Department was abolished and the applicant came under the direct authority of the plant’s management.   On retiring in 1997 the applicant asked her local district Social Insurance Board to calculate her retirement pension. She was informed that, in accordance with paragraph 1 of the transitional provisions of the State Pensions Act, only periods of work in Latvia could be taken into account in calculating the pensions of foreign nationals or stateless persons resident in Latvia on 1   January 1991. As the applicant had been employed from 1   January 1973 to 21   November 1990 by entities based in Kiev and Moscow, the Board calculated her pension solely in respect of the time she had worked before and after that period. As a result, she was awarded a monthly pension of 20   Latvian lati (LVL) (approximately 35   euros   (EUR)).   The applicant brought administrative and judicial proceedings, without success. Ultimately, the applicant’s appeal on points of law to the Senate of the Supreme Court, examined at a public hearing on 6   October 1999, was dismissed. The Senate upheld the district and regional courts’ findings that the period during which the applicant had been employed by Ukrainian and Russian companies could not be taken into account in calculating her pension. Furthermore, as those employers were not taxpayers in Latvia, there was no reason for the applicant to be covered by the Latvian mandatory social-insurance scheme.   The applicant requested her case to be re-examined because she had been unable to take part in the hearing of 6   October 1999 as it had started earlier than scheduled. That request was also dismissed.   In February 2000 the applicant was informed that, on the basis of an agreement reached between Latvia and Ukraine, her pension had been recalculated, with effect from 1   November 1999, to take account of the years she had worked for her Ukrainian-based employers.   Complaints   Relying on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that application of the transitional provisions of the State Pensions Act, in that they impose a nationality condition for periods of service outside Latvia to be taken into account, constitutes discrimination which has deprived her of pension entitlements in respect of 17   years’ employment. She also complains, in particular, that the hearing of 6   October 1999 was held earlier than scheduled, which prevented her from taking part in the examination of her appeal on points of law, in breach of Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 February 2000 and declared admissible on 11 July 2006. The Chamber to which the case was assigned decided to relinquish jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber under Article 30 [1] on 11 December 2007.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Nicolas Bratza (British), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese) Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ján Šikuta (Slovak), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [2] , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgarian), judges , Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Deputy Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Sandra Kaulina , co-Agent ,   Emīls Plaksins , Dace Trušinka , Advisers ;   Applicant :   Vladimirs Buzajevs , Counsel ,   Aleksejs Dimitrovs , Adviser.   *** After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date. [3]   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects. [2] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.