FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF PETRYCHENKO v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 2586/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 July 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Petrychenko v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
André Potocki, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Síofra O’Leary, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 June 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 2586/07) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Mr Valeriy Petrovych Petrychenko (“the applicant”), on 12 December 2006.
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented most recently by their Acting Agent, Ms O. Davydchuk of the Ministry of Justice.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the domestic courts failed to give sufficient reasons for their decisions in his pension dispute.
4. On 31 March 2011 the President of the Fifth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Kyiv.
6. In October 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Obolonskiy District Court of Kyiv against the local department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine, seeking recovery of alleged pension arrears and compensation for moral damage. In his claim the applicant stated, in particular, that under Article 46 of the Constitution he was entitled to a pension equal to the amount of the minimum living standard. However, his pension was lower than that minimum standard applicable at the relevant time.
7. On 25 October 2004 the court rejected the applicant’s claim as unfounded, stating that the Pension Fund of Ukraine had not breached any legal act. On 3 February 2005 and 14 June 2006 respectively the Kyiv City Court of Appeal and the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the first-instance court. Neither of these courts considered the applicant’s argument under Article 46 of the Constitution in respect of inconsistency of the amount of his pension with the minimum living standard.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
8. The relevant domestic law is set out in the judgment in the case of Pronina v. Ukraine (no. 63566/00, §§ 13-19, 18 July 2006).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to consider his argument that the amount of his pension had been determined contrary to the requirements of the Constitution. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
A. Admissibility
10. The Court notes that this application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
11. The applicant maintained that the domestic courts failed to give sufficient reasons for their decisions and did not address his arguments in respect of non-compliance of the amount of his pension with the requirements of the Constitution.
12. The Government recalled the Court’s case-law that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention did not oblige domestic courts to give a detailed answer to each argument raised by a plaintiff. In addition, it is primarily for the national authorities, notably, the courts, to resolve problems of the interpretation of domestic law and the assessment of facts (see Gayevskiy v. Ukraine, no. 60725/00, 11 January 2005). The Government argued that the national courts had duly considered the applicant’s arguments and rendered well-grounded decisions while the applicant’s pension payments were calculated in compliance with Article 46 of the Constitution.
13. The Court notes that a similar complaint has been examined in the case of Pronina (cited above) and the case of Bogatova v. Ukraine (no. 5231/04, 7 October 2010). It notes that in the present case the applicant also claimed before the domestic courts that his pension should have been calculated in line with the requirements of Article 46 of the Constitution. However, as in Pronina and Bogatova, the domestic courts made no attempt to analyse the applicant’s claim from this standpoint, despite the explicit reference to it before every judicial instance. It is not the task of the Court to decide what would have been the most appropriate way for the domestic courts to deal with this argument. Nevertheless, by mere ignoring the applicant’s argument altogether, even though it was specific, pertinent and important, the domestic courts fell short of their obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
14. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
16. The applicant claimed 4,748.51 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH), equivalent to approximately 700 euros (EUR), in respect of pecuniary damage and UAH 100,000, equivalent to approximately EUR 14,900, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
17. The Government contested those claims.
18. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. Deciding in equity, it awards the applicant EUR 1,200 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
19. The applicant made no claim under this head, and thus the Court makes no award.
C. Default interest
20. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that the above amount shall be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(c) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 July 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Milan BlaškoAndré Potocki
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy