Information Note on the Court’s case-law 88
July-August 2006
Andrejeva v. Latvia (dec.) - 55707/00
Decision 11.7.2006 [Section III]
Article 14
Discrimination
Exclusion of non-nationals from pension rights in respect of the years of working abroad: admissible
The applicant entered Latvian territory in 1954, at the age of 12, at a time when the territory was one of the fifteen “Soviet Socialist Republics” and hence de facto part of the Soviet Union. She has been permanently resident there ever since. In 1966 she took up employment in a Latvian factory. From 1973 until November 1990 the applicant, although physically present on Latvian soil, worked for Soviet public bodies whose head offices were in Russia and Ukraine and which paid her salary every month by post office giro transfer. From November 1990 until her retirement in 1997 the applicant worked for employers based in Latvia.
In August 1991 Latvia regained full independence. In December 1991 the Soviet Union, of which the applicant had previously been a national, broke up. The applicant was left without any nationality and was granted the status of “permanently resident non-citizen”. In 1997 the Social Security Directorate calculated the applicant’s retirement pension without taking into account the 17 years during which she had worked for organisations based in Ukraine and Russia since, under the relevant legislation, only years spent working for Latvian employers could be taken into consideration in calculating the entitlement of foreign nationals and stateless persons living in Latvia. Latvian citizens, on the other hand, were entitled to a pension in respect of all periods of time worked, including those worked outside Latvian territory and irrespective of their social security contributions.
Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, the applicant applied to the court of first instance and then to the regional court. Both rejected her application on the ground that her years of work on Latvian territory for employers located abroad were to be considered as equivalent to an extended mission and could not give rise to any entitlement to a State pension. Acting on the applicant’s behalf, a public prosecutor lodged an appeal on points of law with the Senate of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court registry notified the applicant of the exact date and time of the public hearing. However, the hearing began earlier than scheduled and the Senate decided to examine the case before the parties had arrived. After hearing the opinion of the prosecutor the Senate dismissed the appeal, having observed that, according to law, anyone employed by a Latvian taxpayer was covered by the country’s compulsory insurance scheme. The applicant was not covered since her employers, who were based in Ukraine and Russia, did not pay taxes in Latvia. As she had been unable to participate in the hearing, the applicant requested the Senate to re-examine the case. The Senate refused the request with apologies.
In 2000 the Social Security Agency informed the applicant that, in accordance with the agreement concluded between Ukraine and Latvia in 1999, her pension had been recalculated to take account of the years she had worked for employers in Ukraine.
Admissible under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 (early start of the hearing before the Senate of the Supreme Court).
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy