IVANGORODSKAYA v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

Published on 15 July 2025

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 50220/18
Nina Ivanovna IVANGORODSKAYA against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 27 June 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications stem from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in Crimea. They concern the alleged termination of the applicants’ retirement and disability pensions in Crimea since the Russian Federation’s assertion of jurisdiction over it in 2014 (Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (dec.) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, § 335, 16 December 2020).

The applicants are permanent residents of Crimea. They were granted social benefits by Ukrainian authorities on various dates in accordance with Ukrainian legislation. In particular, the applicants in applications nos. 50220/18 and 26924/20 were entitled a retirement pension and the applicant in application no. 27701/21 was granted social disability benefits. Since the Russian Federation began exercising jurisdiction over Crimea, the applicants’ payments were suspended or discontinued on the grounds that they had not acquired Russian passports, a prerequisite for receiving a pension under Russian legislation. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant, Ms Ivangorodskaya, was granted an old-age pension in 1990. Following the Russian Federation’s asserting its jurisdiction over Crimea, the applicant’s pension payments have been suspended as of 1 August 2017 and were later terminated by a decision of the “Department of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in Sevastopol” with effect from 1 August 2018 and due to the absence of documents confirming the applicant’s Russian citizenship. The applicant challenged this decision in the national courts, but without success. The final decision was given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 13 May 2020.

In 2022 the applicant has acquired Russian citizenship. Consequently, her pension payments were resumed with effect from 1 May 2019 on the basis of statutory limitation rules under Russian law which allows retrospective payment for the past three years only. She requested to be awarded her pension allowance from the date of suspension, i.e. from 1 August 2017, but she was refused on the basis of the above-indicated legal rules.

The applicant, Mr Krivenko, was entitled to an old-age pension by the Ukrainian authorities in 2001. According to the Russian legislation relevant as of the moment when the Russian Federation asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea, the applicant was automatically imposed a Russian citizenship, but he refused to take a Russian passport due to his personal views. Since 1 August 2017 the “Department of the Pension Fund of the Republic of Crimea in Yalta” discontinued paying to the applicant his pension allowance as he had failed to provide a copy of his Russian passport. The applicant applied to the Russian courts seeking to obtain the pension allowances corresponding to the period from 1 August 2017 to 1 November 2018, but without success. His request was rejected, with the final decision given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 18 February 2020.

The applicant, Mr Dzhatuyev, is a legally incapacitated person. He is represented before the Court by his mother, Ms Dzhatuyeva, who is his legal guardian. The applicant was granted a social disability pension by the Ukrainian authorities in 2006. Subsequently, Russian citizenship was automatically imposed on the applicant in accordance with Russian legislation in 2014, but he refused to take a Russian passport on the ground of his religious beliefs. Therefore, the applicant was issued with alternative documents to confirm his identity, namely, a notarised certificate of identification of a citizen, bearing a photo of the applicant and a certificate issued by the “Migration Department of the Ministry of the Interior affairs of the Republic of Crimea” on recognition of the applicant as a citizen of the Russian Federation. Nevertheless, since 1 November 2017 Russian authorities discontinued his pension payments claiming that only a passport holder was entitled to receive a social pension in accordance with the Russian legislation. The applicant challenged the above decision, but to no avail. His request was dismissed by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 3 March 2021.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants raise a complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions was breached. The applicant in application no. 27701/21, Mr Dzhatuyev, raises that same complaint under Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant in application no. 50220/18 (Ivangorodskaya v. Russia) alleged to have raised the same complaint before the United Nations (the applicant did not specify which body of the UN system she had applied to, nor did she provide proof of submission).

Additionally, the applicant in application no. 26924/20 (Krivenko v. Russia), relies on Article 3 of the Convention to claim that termination of his pension as his only source of income, constitute a degrading treatment.

Finally, the applicants complain - expressly or in substance (application no. 27701/21) - about discrimination in the enjoyment of their property rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, alleging differential treatment compared to pensioners with Russian citizenship and/or passports.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Has the applicant in application no. 50220/18 (Ivangorodskaya v. Russia) complied with the admissibility criterion provided for by Article 35 § 2 (b)? In particular, is the applicant’s application lodged with the Court substantially the same as a matter that has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation (see Smirnova v. Russia (dec.) nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, 3 October 2002, and Vojnovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 4819/10, §§ 26-32, 26 June 2012)?

2.    Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions?

If so, did it have a basis in “law” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 942-46, 25 June 2024)?

In the affirmative, did that interference strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the applicants’ fundamental rights?

3.  Did the applicant’s situation in application no. 26924/20 (Krivenko v. Russia) on account of the termination of his pension payments attain the minimum level of severity falling within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention (see Larioshina v. Russia (dec.), no. 56869/00, 23 April 2002 and Budina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45603/05, 18 June 2009?

4.  Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their property rights on account of the termination of their pension payments, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Savickis and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 49270/11, § 180-88, 9 June 2022)?

APPENDIX