Published on 20 November 2023
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 2091/19
Vira Semenivna BOROVYK against Ukraine
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 30 October 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications concern the suspension of payment of pension and/or other social payments to persons residing in the eastern regions of Ukraine where armed hostilities started in 2014.
The applicants had been receiving retirement pension; the applicant in application no. 5534/19 had been receiving special social aid as a caregiver of her disabled mother. As of August 2014, all social payments were suspended due to the hostilities. According to the legislation adopted in the aftermath of those events, to continue receiving any type of social payments, a person in the applicants’ situation had to move to the territories controlled by the Government and register as an internally displaced person (IDP) (see the facts and domestic law in Tsezar and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 73590/14 and 6 others, 3 February 2018 and (see Kandyba and others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 33137/16, 13 October 2020).
As the applicants failed to do so for different reasons, including for reasons of ill health and limited mobility, their claims before the domestic authorities, including the courts, to have their social payments resumed, were rejected (dates of final decisions indicated in the appended table). In application no. 15809/19, the applicant’s claims to pay her the pension due to her mother for the period until the latter’s death in 2017 were also refused based on the fact that her mother had never been registered as an IDP.
The applicants invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 14 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol 12.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right for peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
Has that interference been in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and, if so, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants as claimed by them (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?
2. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment in respect of the possibility to continue receiving their social payments? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?
APPENDIX
List of applications
No.
Application no.
Case name
Date of final decision and date of lodging of application
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
2091/19
Borovyk v. Ukraine
15/08/2018
18/12/2018
Vira Semenivna BOROVYK
1947
Donetsk
Ukrainian
Vyacheslav Oleksiyovych STASYUK
2.
5534/19
Kolodiy v. Ukraine
01/10/2018
08/01/2019
Lyubov Ivanivna KOLODIY
1955
Cherkasy
Ukrainian
3.
15809/19
Kolodiy v. Ukraine
22/11/2018
09/03/2019
Lyubov Ivanivna KOLODIY
1955
Cherkasy
Ukrainian
4.
22953/19
Toporkova v. Ukraine
18/01/2019
19/04/2019
Lyubov Ivanivna TOPORKOVA
1935
Vuglegirsk
Ukrainian
Oleg Volodymyrovych TARASENKO
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy