Communicated on 26 June 2018

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 43480/17 Ljudmilla Borisovna FIZGEJER against Estonia lodged on 8 June 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the termination of the applicant ’ s pension payments upon her moving to the United States of America.

Having worked as a teacher for 30 years, the applicant started receiving pension in 1991. The pension payments were stopped in June 2007, following which the applicant made several enquiries to various Estonian authorities (Social Insurance Board, the Parliament, the President and the Supreme Court) to have her pension payments restored. The Social Insurance Board ( Sotsiaalkindlustusamet ) explained that the pension payments had been stopped for the reason that the applicant had moved to the United States of America with which Estonia did not have a bilateral treaty concerning the coordination of social security schemes. Under the State Pension Insurance Act ( riikliku pensionikindlustuse seadus ), as in force at the relevant time, the pension was paid to persons residing either in Estonia or in those countries with which Estonia had concluded relevant international agreements. The applicant did not challenge the termination of pension payments in domestic courts.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies? Which remedies, existing in law and effective in practice, were available to the applicant, concerning that the grounds for the termination of her pension payments derived from a statutory provision of general application? ( see Pichkur v. Ukraine , no. 10441/06 , § 36, 7 November 2013, and Myroshnychenko v. Ukraine ( dec. ), no. 10205/04, 3 April 2007)?

2. In the event that there were no effective remedies available to be exhausted, has the applicant complied with the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention when lodging her application with the Court (see Pichkur v. Ukraine , no. 10441/06 , § 36, 7 November 2013, and Myroshnychenko v. Ukraine ( dec. ), no. 10205/04, 3 April 2007, (see Sheidl v. Ukraine ( dec. ), no. 3460/03, 25 March 2008)?

3. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights on the ground of her place of residence, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunc tion with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

4. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?