FIFTH SECTION CASE OF DMYTRENKO AND BEZDOROZHNIY v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 59552/11 and 7096/12)    JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 27 August 2020 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.STRASBOURG2 July 2020  This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dmytrenko and Bezdorozhniy v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Mārtiņš Mits, President, Ganna Yudkivska, Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,and Anne-Marie Dougin, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having regard to:the applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Ukrainian nationals, Mr Mykola Mykhaylovych[1] Dmytrenko (“the first applicant” – application no. 59552/11, lodged on 12 September 2011) and Mr Mykhaylo Gerasymovych[2] Bezdorozhniy (“the second applicant” – application no. 7096/12, lodged on 29 January 2012);the decision to give notice of the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the State’s failure to pay a supplement to their pensions for the period between 2 April and 31 December 2006 to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court;the Government’s observations;Having deliberated in private on 9 June 2020,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:INTRODUCTION1. The case concerns the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the State’s failure to pay a supplement to their pensions.THE FACTS2. The first applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Donetsk. The second applicant was born in 1936. On 5 November 2019 Mr Yuriy Mikhaylovich Bezdorozhniy, the son and the heir of the second applicant, informed the Court that the latter had died in 2015 and expressed his wish to pursue the application.3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr I. Lishchyna.4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.5. The first applicant has, and the second applicant had, the special status of “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 Children of War Act”). Article 6 of the above Act entitled them to a special supplement to their pension in the amount of 30% of the minimum pension.6. The applicants instituted court proceedings against the Pension Fund of Ukraine, claiming, inter alia, the above pension supplement for the period between 2 April and 31 December 2006.7. By final decisions delivered on 13 May and 18 August 2011 respectively, the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine and the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the applicants’ claims. The courts found that by virtue of the amendments to the State Budget Act 2006, with effect from 2 April 2006, the above pension supplement was to be introduced gradually in 2006, in accordance with a procedure elaborated by the Cabinet of Ministers. However, since in 2006 no such procedure had been elaborated, there was no ground for allowing the claims.8. Furthermore, on 31 December 2010 the Kuybyshevskyy District Court of Donetsk ordered the Pension Fund to calculate and pay to the second applicant the pension supplement for the periods between 9 July and 31 December 2007 and between 22 May 2008 and 31 December 2010. The above judgment, which became final on 18 August 2011, remains unenforced.RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE9. 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 LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS10. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.LOCUS STANDI OF MR BEZDOROZHNIY11. In their comments on the claims for just satisfaction submitted by Mr Yuriy Mikhaylovich Bezdorozhniy the Government stated that the latter had not provided confirmation that he was the second applicant’s son and only heir in order to prove that he had standing to continue the present proceedings in that applicant’s stead.12. The Court notes that, following the Registry’s request, Mr Bezdorozhniy provided documents confirming his status as the second applicant’s son and only heir. Those documents were also forwarded to the Government for information.13. The Court thus considers that Mr Bezdorozhniy has duly confirmed his status as the second applicant’s son and only heir. In the absence of any other submissions from the Government as regards his standing to pursue the application, and noting further that the case concerns a property right which is, in principle, transferable to the heirs of the deceased (see, for instance, Sharenok v. Ukraine, no. 35087/02, § 12, 22 February 2005), the Court considers that Mr Bezdorozhniy has standing to continue the present proceedings in the second applicant’s stead. However, reference will still be made to the second applicant throughout the remainder of the judgment.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 ON ACCOUNT OF THE STATE’S FAILURE TO PAY THE PENSION SUPPLEMENT14. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the State’s failure to pay the supplement to their pensions in the relevant period in 2006 pursuant to Article 6 of the Children of War Act. 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.”Admissibility15. The Government submitted that, even assuming that the applicants had been unlawfully deprived of their possessions, the pension supplement claimed by them had been negligible and should not raise any issue under the Convention. According to them, the total amount due for the relevant period had been 159 euros (EUR). Referring to Svystun v. Ukraine ((dec.), no. 25250/16 and 2 other applications, 3 November 2016), they submitted that the amount, which was less than EUR 200 and had not constituted the primary source of income for any applicant, showed that the applicants had not suffered a significant disadvantage.16. The Court notes that it was for the Cabinet of Ministers to determine in 2006 the size of the pension supplement claimed by the applicants (see Sukhanov and Ilchenko, cited above, §§ 54-55). However, no relevant decision was eventually made by it (ibid.).

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