Communicated on 26 August 2019

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 9021/11 Valentyn Ivanovych IVANOV against Ukraine lodged on 21 January 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Valentyn Ivanovych Ivanov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Dnipro.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 26 January 2009 the applicant wrote to the Krasnogvardiyskyy Branch of the Pension Fund in Dnipropetrovsk (hereinafter “the Pension Fund”) seeking a recalculation of his pension for the period 9 July 2007 to 31 December 2008 to include a “children of war” supplement equal to 30% of the minimum pension and allocation o f the same supplement as from 1 January 2009.

On 20 February 2009 the Pension Fund dismissed the request for recalculation.

On 15 May 2009 the applicant initiated administrative proceedings with the Krasnogvardiyskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) against the Pension Fund, seeking a recalculation of his pension to include the “children of war” supplement for the period 2006 to 2008, payment of the outstanding index-linked amount and allocation of the same supplement as from 2009. The applicant attached his letter to the Pension Fund of 26 January 2009 to his claim.

On 16 February 2010 the District Court partly allowed the claim. It referred to the Constitutional Court ’ s decisions of 9 July 2007 and 22 May 2008, which declared unconstitutional certain provisions of the 2007 and 2008 State Budget Acts suspending and modifying payments of the “children of war” supplement for the respective years. Consequently, the court ordered a recalculation of the applicant ’ s pension for the periods 9 July to 31 December 2007 and 22 May to 31 December 2008. The court further found that the applicant ’ s claim for 2006 had to be rejected, as his right to additional payments had only arisen on 9 July 2007, the date of the Constitutional Court ’ s decision. It also rejected the claim for 2009, since the applicant had not provided evidence proving that he had asked the Pension Fund to allocate the respective “children of war” supplement.

The Pension Fund and the applicant appealed to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”). The applicant asked it to quash the first-instance court ’ s decision and allow his claim in full.

On 30 July 2010 the Court of Appeal considered the Pension Fund ’ s appeal and rejected it as unsubstantiated.

On 29 November 2010 the applicant lodged another written submission with the Court of Appeal, stressing that the first-instance court had disregarded his letter to the Pension Fund of 26 January 2009, which he had attached to his initial administrative claim.

On 16 March 2011 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant ’ s appeal as unsubstantiated. It reasoned that in 2006 the Cabinet of Ministers had not set up a procedure for payment of the “children of war” supplement, which rendered payment impossible. The appellate court further upheld the first ‑ instance court ’ s reasoning regarding the recalculation of the applicant ’ s pension for the periods in 2007 and 2008, but did not comment on the applicant ’ s claim for the period 2009 onwards.

The applicant appealed in cassation, complaining that the Court of Appeal had failed to consider evidence proving that he had asked the Pension Fund to allocate the disputed supplement as from 1 January 2009.

On 14 June 2011 the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine upheld the decision and reasoning of the lower courts. The court commented on the applicant ’ s claim for the periods in 2007 and 2008, but did not deal with the claim for 2009.

The relevant domestic law and practice on the “children of war” supplement for the period 2006 to 2009 can be found in the case of Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine (nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10 , §§ 17-25, 26 June 2014).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to examine his main evidence in support of his claim for a “children of war” supplement to his pension for 2009.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the failure of the national courts to consider the applicant ’ s evidence in support of his claim for allocation of the “children of war” supplement in 2009?