Key Takeaways
- • The European Court of Human Rights ruled in Pozdnyakov v. Ukraine that Ukraine violated the applicant's right of access to court under Article 6(1) of the Convention when a Ukrainian appellate court refused to consider his new pension claim, and awarded him 1500 euros in moral damages.
- • The pensioner's dispute arose after he moved from Krasnodon (Luhansk region) to Myrhorod (Poltava region) in September 2011, after which the Pension Fund began paying 3053.12 UAH per month instead of the court-ordered 4108.44 UAH.
- • The Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal closed the 2012 proceedings on July 2, 2012, reasoning the issue had already been considered in 2011; the Supreme Administrative Court refused cassation on September 4, 2012.
- • The ECHR rejected the claims for material damages and legal costs, and dismissed the complaint over non-implementation of the pension recalculation as inadmissible, citing a February 2012 Cabinet of Ministers change to Resolution No. 530.
- • Ukraine must pay the 1500 euros within three months of the judgment becoming final, with default interest at the ECB marginal lending rate plus three percentage points.
Summary
The European Court of Human Rights has found that Ukraine violated a pensioner's right of access to court after Ukrainian appellate courts refused to hear his claim that a court-ordered pension amount was no longer being paid following a change of residence, according to the Sud.ua legal publication. The judgment in Pozdnyakov v. Ukraine awards the applicant 1500 euros in compensation for moral damage.
The applicant, born in 1961, lived in Krasnodon, Luhansk region, until September 2011 and was receiving an old-age pension while continuing to work. In December 2010 the Pension Fund recalculated his payments using the 2007 average salary. He challenged this in court, arguing that Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 530 of May 28, 2008 required use of the 2009 indicator. The court sided with him, and the recalculated pension was paid from the end of March 2011.
After he moved to Myrhorod in September 2011, his case was transferred to the local Pension Fund office and payments fell to 3053.12 UAH per month, against 4108.44 UAH under the court recalculation. In 2012 he sued the Myrhorod office. The Myrhorod court held that the Krasnodon and Myrhorod offices were part of one organization, the Pension Fund of Ukraine, and ordered payment of the difference for October 1, 2011 to April 1, 2012, which he received in May 2012. The Pension Fund appealed, and on July 2, 2012 the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal annulled that decision and closed the proceedings, finding the matter had already been considered in 2011. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected his cassation complaint on September 4, 2012.
The ECHR found that the 2012 claim concerned a new issue, non-compliance with an existing court decision after a change of residence, rather than a repeat of the 2011 dispute. The Government had argued that the applicant should have petitioned state enforcement officers to substitute the Myrhorod office as debtor. The Court rejected this as a justification, noting the appellate court could have advised him of that route but did not, and that both offices belonged to the same organization. The Court therefore held that the appellate court had not examined the claims on the merits, violating the essence of the right under Article 6(1).
The Court declined to find a violation regarding non-implementation of the recalculation and the property-rights complaint. It noted that on February 29, 2012 the Cabinet of Ministers repealed the paragraph of Resolution No. 530 relied upon by the Krasnodon court, effective March 12, 2012, and that pension legislation can change. It also noted the applicant had received the awarded difference for October 2011 to April 2012, and that his pension later rose to 9558 UAH at the end of 2017, 11,182 UAH in 2019 and 20,204 UAH from March 2025. Those complaints were declared inadmissible. The Court also rejected the claim for material damages for lack of causation and refused legal costs. Ukraine must pay within three months of the judgment becoming final, with default interest at the ECB marginal lending rate plus three percentage points.
The applicant, born in 1961, lived in Krasnodon, Luhansk region, until September 2011 and was receiving an old-age pension while continuing to work. In December 2010 the Pension Fund recalculated his payments using the 2007 average salary. He challenged this in court, arguing that Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 530 of May 28, 2008 required use of the 2009 indicator. The court sided with him, and the recalculated pension was paid from the end of March 2011.
After he moved to Myrhorod in September 2011, his case was transferred to the local Pension Fund office and payments fell to 3053.12 UAH per month, against 4108.44 UAH under the court recalculation. In 2012 he sued the Myrhorod office. The Myrhorod court held that the Krasnodon and Myrhorod offices were part of one organization, the Pension Fund of Ukraine, and ordered payment of the difference for October 1, 2011 to April 1, 2012, which he received in May 2012. The Pension Fund appealed, and on July 2, 2012 the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal annulled that decision and closed the proceedings, finding the matter had already been considered in 2011. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected his cassation complaint on September 4, 2012.
The ECHR found that the 2012 claim concerned a new issue, non-compliance with an existing court decision after a change of residence, rather than a repeat of the 2011 dispute. The Government had argued that the applicant should have petitioned state enforcement officers to substitute the Myrhorod office as debtor. The Court rejected this as a justification, noting the appellate court could have advised him of that route but did not, and that both offices belonged to the same organization. The Court therefore held that the appellate court had not examined the claims on the merits, violating the essence of the right under Article 6(1).
The Court declined to find a violation regarding non-implementation of the recalculation and the property-rights complaint. It noted that on February 29, 2012 the Cabinet of Ministers repealed the paragraph of Resolution No. 530 relied upon by the Krasnodon court, effective March 12, 2012, and that pension legislation can change. It also noted the applicant had received the awarded difference for October 2011 to April 2012, and that his pension later rose to 9558 UAH at the end of 2017, 11,182 UAH in 2019 and 20,204 UAH from March 2025. Those complaints were declared inadmissible. The Court also rejected the claim for material damages for lack of causation and refused legal costs. Ukraine must pay within three months of the judgment becoming final, with default interest at the ECB marginal lending rate plus three percentage points.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.