FIRST SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 45603/05
by Antonina Dmitriyevna BUDINA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 February 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoli Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
andSøren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 November 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Antonina Dmitriyevna Budina, is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Pushkino, the Moscow Region.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a disabled person (she has the so-called 3rd degree of disability from childhood which is the lightest disability degree in Russia). Until 1 April 2003 the applicant received a disability pension, of 1,000 Russian roubles (“RUB”) (around 30 euros). Upon reaching the pension age, which is 55 for women in Russia, the applicant ceased to receive the disability pension and was awarded a standard old-age pension of RUB 935 (around 27 euros). The change and the calculation of the applicant's old age pension were made according to the laws “On pensions in the Russian Federation”, “On state pension provision in the RF” and the law “On obligatory pension insurance in the RF”. The pension was awarded for 28 years, 7 months and 12 days of work.
Having no other income or property, the applicant calculated the necessary amount of money meeting her basic needs, and, in January 2004 applied to the State Pension Fund, requesting it to increase her pension to RUB 5,000. Upon the Fund's refusal, she lodged a claim with the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, asking the Government of Russia to award her a pension of RUB 5,000. She substantiated her claim with the following: her pension was lower than the disability allowance previously received by her and several times lower than the minimum wage in the country. She provided a court with a detailed calculation made on the basis of the local costs for coverage of her indispensable needs and explained why she was claiming RUB 5,000. The description said: “daily food consumption – RUB 100 (RUB 3,000 per month); flat maintenance – RUB 500 per month; medical services and health-related expenses – RUB 1,000; hygienic items and slippers – RUB 500.
Total: RUB 5,000 for surviving”.
On 3 March 2005 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant's claim, having found that the applicant had not contested the way of the calculation of her pension and had not challenged any law establishing the principles of pension calculation.
The applicant appealed, alleging unfairness and unconstitutionality of the existing pension regulations and complaining about the unavoidable poverty the pensioners have to experience as a result of these regulations. On 26 May 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment.
B. Relevant domestic law
The Russian Constitution (Article 39) and the State Pensions Act entitle a person to an old-age pension, the amount of which depends on the employment and related activities record.
Article 7 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, adopted by referendum on 12 December 1993, provides as follows:
“1. The Russian Federation is a social state, whose policies are aimed at creating conditions which ensure a dignified life and free development of a person.
2. The Russian Federation... provides state support ... for disabled and for elderly citizens, develops a system of social services and establishes government pensions, benefits and other social security guarantees.”
COMPLAINTS
1. Under Article 2 of the Convention the applicant complains that the State deprives her of livelihood and thus by implication condemns her to death, violating her right to life. She claims that after having paid her bills she is left with 50 cents per day which only can allow her to buy a daily bread rate. The applicant further compares it with the means the Russian State provides for homeless dogs.
2. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains about the outcome of the proceedings. In particular, she alleges that the failure of the courts to recognise the unfairness of the new law on pension which allows the payments of pensions to be lower then the minimum surviving level demonstrates the State's irresponsibility towards its citizens.
3. Under Article 14 of the Convention the applicant complains about the new law on pensions, according to which her pension makes only 10% of her salary. In this respect she notes that according to the old law her pension would have corresponded to 58% of her salary. She further alleges that a person living in Moscow receives around USD 100 and that a State civil servant is entitled to retain 75% of his/her salary when retired.
THE LAW
1. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, which provides, in relevant part:
“1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.”
The Court considers, however, that the applicant's complaint about the insufficient pension leading to the applicant's mental and physical suffering falls to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention (see, in particular, Larioshina v. Russia, no. 56869/00, 23 April 2002), which reads, in the relevant part, as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, insofar as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair hearing by [a] tribunal ... .”
In particular, she alleges that the courts' assessment of evidence was wrong.
The Court recalls that, in principle, it is not called upon to examine the alleged errors of law and fact committed by the domestic judicial authorities, insofar as no unfairness of the proceedings can be detected (see, e.g., Cekic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 15085/02, 9 October 2003). Throughout the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer, was fully able to state her case and contest the evidence that she considered false. The applicant has therefore not substantiated her complaint of unfairness within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.
It follows that this aspect of the case is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. This part of the application must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
3. The applicant complained about the discrimination by the domestic courts, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, which provides as follows:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
The Court, firstly, notes that the applicant did not indicate the ground on which she had allegedly been discriminated against. Moreover, the Court observes that the applicant's allegations that she had been discriminated are not supported by the facts of the case. In particular, the fact that her pension was lower than a pension of a former civil servant does not constitute discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. Neither does the fact that her claim for increased pension was dismissed (see, Des Fours Walderode v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 40057/98, ECHR 2004–V).
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaint concerning the inhuman and degrading treatment due to the wholly insufficient amount of her pension;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy