GRELYUS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

Published on 22 September 2025

FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos. 35895/17 and 30142/23
Anatoliy Vladimirovich GRELYUS against Russia
and Ali Asan OZENBASH against Russia
lodged on 8 May 2017 and 29 October 2021 respectively
communicated on 2 September 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The applications concern pension disputes in Crimea which took place after the Russian Federation asserted its jurisdiction over the peninsula in 2014 (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 1174‑75, 25 June 2024). The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

On 17 June 2014 the applicant requested the “Pension Fund of the Republic of Crimea in the Bakhchysarai district” (hereinafter “the Crimean PF”) to grant him a pension allowance. He was refused due to the lack of documents proving his work experience. He challenged the refusal before the courts and on 13 November 2014 the “Bakhchysarai District Court of the Republic of Crimea” ruled in his favour. The decision became final on 25 March 2015. However, by a letter of 6 May 2015 the applicant was informed that the decision could not be enforced because the “Crimean PF” had been liquidated as of 22 October 2014 and a new state body had been established – the “Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in the Bakhchysaray district of the Republic of Crimea” (hereinafter – “the Russian PF”), which was not a successor to the previous body.

Subsequently, the applicant initiated new civil proceedings against the “Russian PF”, complaining about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. Although the first instance satisfied his claim, on 14 April 2016 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision and terminated the civil proceedings as the issue raised by the applicant had already been resolved in another set of proceedings.

The applicant then requested the “Bakhchysarai District Court of the Republic of Crimea” to substitute the defendant in the decision of 13 November 2014 with the “Russian PF”. The final decision dismissing his request was delivered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 20 December 2016.

The applicant was granted an old age pension by the “Russian PF” on 1st June 2018. Subsequently, the Russian authorities initiated proceedings against the applicant, seeking reimbursement of the pension payments received by the applicant between 1st June 2018 and April 2019, as the applicant appeared to have simultaneously received pension in Ukraine as well. The “Belogorodskiy District Court of the Republic of Crimea” ordered the applicant to repay RUB 137,030 (approximately EUR 1,930) to the “Russian PF”. The decision was upheld by the higher courts, including the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation which gave its decision on 21 June 2021.

The applicant in application no. 35895/17 (Grelyus v. Russia) complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto about the non-enforcement of the judgment given in his favour by the “Bakhchisarayskiy District Court of the Republic of Crimea” of 13 November 2014. He further complains under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective remedy in respect of his complaints.

The applicant in application no. 30142/23 (Ozenbash v. Russia) complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was violated because the national courts ordered him to reimburse the alleged undue pension he had received over a period of eleven months.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Have the applicants complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, has the applicant in application no. 35895/17 (Grelyus v. Russia) complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In this connection, can the national proceedings initiated by the applicant following the refusal of the “Russian PF” on 6 May 2015 be considered effective remedies for the purpose of calculating the six-month time-limit?

2.  Did the applicants have a “possession” or “a legitimate expectation” in terms of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), 18 December 1996, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑VI)?

3.  If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative:

- as regards application no. 35895/17 (Grelyus v. Russia) has there been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment in applicant’s favour?

- as regards application no. 30142/23 (Ozenbash v. Russia) has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession? If the affirmative, did it have a basis in “law” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], cited above, §§ 942-46, 25 June 2024)?

4.  Did the applicant in application no. 35895/17 (Grelyus v. Russia) have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the enforcement of the final judgment, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

List of applications:

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant
 

35895/17

Grelyus v. Russia

08/05/2017

Anatoliy Vladimirovich GRELYUS
 

30142/23

Ozenbash v. Russia

29/10/2021

Ali Asan OZENBASH