Communicated on 4 December 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 40424/12 Ramiz Ismayil oglu JAFAROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 14 June 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the refusal by the State authorities to provide the applicant with pension for twenty-five years of service at the prosecutor ’ s office, which he was allegedly entitled to in accordance with Article 32.4 of the Law on Service at the Prosecutor ’ s Office and Article 9.4.1 of the Law on Labour Pensions, effective at the material time. The refusal was based on the ground that the applicant had initially served at the prosecutor ’ s office and then as a judge and his service years as a judge could not be taken into account for calculation of the total service years at the prosecutor ’ s office. However, in case of some other individuals, who had initially served at the prosecutor ’ s office and then served as judges, the service years as a judge were taken into account for calculation of the total service years at the prosecutor ’ s office. Also in case of individuals who had initially served as judges and then at the prosecutor ’ s office, the service years as a judge were taken into account for calculation of the total service years at the prosecutor ’ s office.

The civil proceedings instituted by the applicant in connection with the pension in question lasted from April 2007 to March 2017.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?

2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant subjected to different treatment than other persons in analogous or relevantly similar situations? If so, what was the ground for such difference in treatment? Did it pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?

3. Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?