FIFTH SECTION CASE OF FILOZOFENKO v. UKRAINE(Application no. 72954/11)    JUDGMENTThis version was rectified on 3 February 2020under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court STRASBOURG9 January 2020     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Filozofenko v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: André Potocki, President, Mārtiņš Mits, Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2019,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application (no. 72954/11) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Ukrainian national, Ms Lina Alekseyevna Filozofenko (“the applicant”), on 18 November 2011.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna.3. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the State’s failure to pay a supplement to her pension.4. On 11 July 2018 notice of the above complaint was given to the Government and the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.THE FACTSTHE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE5. The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the Odessa Region.6. The applicant has a special status of a “child of war” (a person who on 2 September 1945 was no more than 18 years of age) under the Children of War Social Protection Act in force as of 1 January 2006 (“the 2006 Act”). Section 6 of the above Act entitled her to a special supplement to her pension in the amount of 30% of the minimum pension.7. On 11 December 2008 she lodged a claim against the State Pension Fund with the domestic courts, asking them to recalculate her pension in accordance with section 6 of the above Act for 2006-2008 and to pay her the outstanding debt.8. On 10 June 2009 the Odessa Circuit Administrative Court partly allowed the claim. It held that in 2006 section 6 of the 2006 Act had been suspended by the State Budget Act 2006. In return amendments to the latter Act, which had entered into force on 1 April 2006[1], had empowered the Cabinet of Ministers to set up a mechanism for a pension increase. However, in 2006 no such mechanism had been set up and the applicant’s claims relating to 2006 had to be rejected. As to her claims relating to 2007 and 2008, the court noted that in 2007 and 2008 section 6 of the 2006 Act had been suspended and modified respectively by the 2007 and 2008 State Budget Acts. However, on 9 July 2007 and 22 May 2008 the Constitutional Court had found that suspension and modification unconstitutional. The court consequently held that the State Pension Fund should recalculate the applicant’s pension, but only for the periods from 9 July to 31 December 2007, and from 22 May to 31 December 2008.9. On 1 November 2010 the Odessa Regional Administrative Court of Appeal partly amended the above judgment. It upheld the lower court’s findings as regards the applicant’s claims for 2006. As to her claims for 2007 and 2008, it also upheld her right to a pension increase for the period from 9 July to 31 December 2007 and from 22 May to 31 December 2008, but held that since she had missed a one-year statutory period for lodging a claim, the claim for 2007 had to be allowed only for the period from 11 to 31 December 2007.10. On 18 May 2011 the Higher Administrative Court upheld the latter judgment.RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW11. The provisions of the relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the case of Sukhanov and Ilchenko v. Ukraine (nos. 68385/10 and 71378/10, §§ 17-25, 26 June 2014).THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of protocol No. 112. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the domestic courts’ refusal to acknowledge in full her claims for pension increase for 2006-2008. The above provision reads as follows:“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”The parties’ submissions13. The Government first submitted that the applicant had lodged her application with the Court on 23 January 2012, while the final decision in her case had been delivered on 18 May 2011. They thus considered that the application had been lodged out of time. Alternatively, they considered that the applicant’s complaint was manifestly ill-founded. As regards her claims for the periods from 1 January to 9 July 2007 and from 1 January to 22 May 2008, the Government referred to Sukhanov and Ilchenko (cited above, §§ 35-39), in which the Court found the applicants’ similar claims in respect of those periods inadmissible. As to the period from 9 July to 11 December 2007, they considered the complaint to be inadmissible, because the applicant had missed a time-limit for lodging her claim. As to the period from 1 April[2] to 31 December 2006, the Government generally referred to the applicant’s complaints in this respect as manifestly ill-founded.14. The applicant first noted that she had sent her first letter to the Court on 17 November 2011, that is, within six months from the date of the domestic final decision, and had submitted to the Court a duly completed application form on 23 January 2012, a time-limit set by the Court. Therefore, she had lodged the application on time. She further stated that the domestic court’s refusal to allow her claims from 1 January to 31 December 2006, from 1 January to 11 December 2007 and from 1 January to 22 May 2008 had been unlawful and ungrounded.The Court’s assessmentAdmissibility15. The Court first notes, as regards the Governments submission about the applicant’s alleged failure to comply with the six-month rule, that the applicant sent the first letter to the Court on 18 November 2011, within six months from the date of the final domestic decision, and the fully completed application form on 23 January 2012, a time-limit set by the Court for the applicant in reply to her first letter, pursuant to the rules in force at the material time.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation