FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4999/06
Lidiya Aleksandrovna TSARKOVA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 September 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 December 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Lidiya Aleksandrovna Tsarkova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1940 in Ukraine and now lives in Ulyanovsk, the Russian Federation.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 8 November 2003 the applicant relocated from Chernovtsy, Ukraine to Ulyanovsk. On 17 February 2004 she registered her temporary residence in Ulyanovsk and renewed it on 17 May, 21 August, and 7 December 2004.
4. In 2005 she acquired Russian citizenship. On 22 July 2005 she registered her permanent residence in Ulyanovsk.
5. On 25 July 2005 she lodged an application for payment of a State earnings-related pension (a “labour pension”) with the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation.
6. The pension was awarded to her from the date of application. In addition, she was paid the pension for the six months prior to the date of application, because Ukraine (her country of origin) was a party to the Agreement on securing the pension rights of citizens of the Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States of 13 March 2003 (“the CIS Agreement of 2003”).
7. The applicant lodged a lawsuit against the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, seeking recovery of unpaid pension payments for the period between June and December 2004 (six months prior to registration of temporary residence on 7 December 2004). On 5 October 2005 the Justice of the Peace for the 3rd Circuit of the Leninskiy District of Ulyanovsk ruled in her favour.
8. On 30 November 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk reversed the judgment on appeal. The appellate court reasoned that, according to the provisions of the CIS Agreement of 2003, the applicant, as a foreign citizen, could only have requested payment of a labour pension from the Russian Pension Fund if she had registered her permanent residence in Russia and received a residence permit. Until 22 July 2005 she did not have a residence permit or a registered permanent residence in Russia and thus had not satisfied the criteria prescribed by the international agreement and national legislation.
B. Relevant domestic law
9. The Labour Pensions Act 2001 (Федеральный закон № 173-ФЗ «О трудовых пенсиях в Российской Федерации» от 17 декабря 2001 г.) stipulates in Section 3 that foreign citizens and persons without citizenship permanently residing in the Russian Federation have pension rights equal to those of Russian citizens.
10. The Legal Status of Foreign Citizens Act 2002 (Федеральный закон № 115-ФЗ «О правовом положении иностранных граждан в Российской Федерации» от 25 июля 2002 г.) provides in Section 2 that a foreign citizen may only be considered permanently residing in the Russian Federation if he has acquired a residence permit.
C. Relevant Commonwealth of Independent States law
11. The Agreement on securing the pension rights of citizens of the Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States of 13 March 2003 (Соглашение о гарантиях прав граждан государств-участников Содружества независимых государств в области пенсионного обеспечения от 13 марта 2003 г. – “the CIS Agreement of 2003”) regulates the mutual recognition of the pension rights of the citizens of the Contracting States.
12. According to the CIS Agreement of 2003 the award and payment of a pension are regulated by the law of the country where a pensioner has permanent residence (Article 1 and Article 6, Section 1).
13. In the event of relocation of a pensioner to another Member State, the payment of a pension is terminated in the country of origin if the same kind of pension is payable to him in the destination country (Article 7).
COMPLAINT
14. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of a violation of her property rights by the refusal of the Russian authorities to pay her a pension for the period between June and December 2004.
THE LAW
15. In her complaint to the Court the applicant relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which in so far as relevant reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”
16. It has been established in the Court’s case-law that certain entitlements to a pension or other social allowances might fall within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see e.g. Koua Poirrez v. France, no. 40892/98, ECHR 2003‑X, and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005‑X).
17. The Court has previously considered cases where entitlement to a pension was dependant on the applicant’s nationality and place of residence and refusal to pay it gave rise to an issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Gaygusuz v. Austria, 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑IV; Stec and Others, cited above; and Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, ECHR 2009).
18. In the present case the applicant, who was a Ukrainian citizen, relocated to the Russian Federation in 2003 and acquired temporary residence there. She did not try to obtain a residence permit.
19. Under the Russian legislation in force and the CIS Agreement of 2003, which regulates the transfer of pension rights between the participating States, she was entitled to receive her pension from the Russian Federation from the date on which she registered her permanent residence in Russia.
20. As is clear in the present case, the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation awarded her a pension and started payments from the date she acquired Russian citizenship and permanent residence. In addition, the pension was paid to her retroactively for the six months prior to her acquisition of Russian citizenship.
21. The applicant in her submissions did not provide any reasons proving her inability to register her permanent residence in Russia prior to 2005.
22. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant failed to comply with reasonable statutory criteria to receive a pension in the country of her actual residence, while nothing prevented her from doing so. It follows that the application 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
Declares the application inadmissible.
Søren NielsenNina Vajić
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy