CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 février 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 March 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20905/18 Anatoliy Mykolayovych SPASKIN against Ukraine lodged on 16 April 2018 communicated on 24 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a dispute between the applicant, a retired police officer, and State authorities over their failure to increase, as of 1 January 2016, his pension after the Government introduced new salary rates for serving officers as part of a domestic police reform. According to the applicant, for the increase to take place, the domestic law in force at the time required a series of coordinated administrative actions between the Ministry of the Interior or its affiliated structures (“the Ministry”) and the Pension Fund. The applicant claims that this process, being beyond his control, was not followed because the Pension Fund had failed to send required information to the Ministry, which, in turn, could not provide the Pension Fund with a certificate needed for the pension recalculation. In February 2017 the applicant brought administrative proceedings against the Ministry and the Pension Fund seeking, inter alia , the recalculation of his pension. Having considered the applicant’s arguments, domestic courts at all three levels of jurisdiction explicitly recognised his right to a higher pension. However, by a final ruling of 20 March 2018 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on the grounds that the Pension Fund was unable to recalculate his pension without the certificate issued by the Ministry. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, the applicant complains that he was unfairly denied a pension increase due to the State authorities’ failure to issue the necessary documentation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a “legitimate expectation” to obtain a pension increase, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention (see Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, §§ 80-86, 13 December 2016)?   2.     If so, has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1? Has that interference been in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, and, if so, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Moskal v.   Poland , no.   10373/05, § 64, 15 September 2009; Sukhanov and Ilchenko v.   Ukraine , nos.   68385/10 and   71378/10, §   55, 26   June   2014)? In particular:   -     did the competent authorities act in good time, in an appropriate manner and with utmost consistency (see, for example, Grobelny v.   Poland , no.   60477/12, § 68, 5 March 2020)?   -     did the applicant have a possibility to effectively challenge the refusal to increase his pension (see, mutatis mutandis , G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v.   Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 302, 28 June 2018)?   The parties are requested to inform the Court about any further developments regarding the applicant’s claim for the pension increase.