CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 February 2026   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 13703/19 and 14029/19 Vasyl Andriyovych KULYK against Ukraine and Mykola Fedorovych ANDRUSHCHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 28 February 2019 communicated on 12 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern an alleged inconsistency in the application of domestic law by domestic courts in matter of pension recalculation. The applicants are former drivers at a State enterprise. In 2017-2018 they instituted administrative proceedings against the Pension Fund seeking recalculation of their old-age pensions based on the periods they had spent on secondment to the 1986 Chernobyl clean-up operations. In support of their claims, they submitted certificates issued by their former employer indicating the salaries to which they had been entitled for the periods in question. Although the first-instance court found in their favour, the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal (subsequently reorganised into the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal) dismissed the applicants’ claims, holding that they had failed to prove that the indicated salaries had actually been paid to them. The applicants appealed on points of law, relying inter alia on decisions in similar cases where the same court of appeal had accepted identical employer-issued certificates as a sufficient basis for pension recalculation without requiring proof of actual payment of the respective salaries. On 20   November 2018 (in the case of Mr Kulyk) and on 19 December 2018 (in the case of Mr Andrushchenko) the Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ appeals as the cases were considered trivial. The applicants complain under Article   6 of the Convention about inconsistent interpretation by the domestic courts of the same legal provisions regulating their right to pension recalculation. They assert that in sixteen fully comparable cases brought by their former colleagues who had been seconded to the Chernobyl clean-up operations under the same conditions, the same court of appeal accepted identical employer-issued certificates and did not require proof of actual payment of the salaries. The applicants also rely on Article   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty contained in this provision complied with by the domestic courts (see Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v.   Turkey   [GC], no.   13279/05, §§   49-58, 20   October   2011; Lupeni   Greek Catholic Parish and Others v.   Romania   [GC], no.   76943/11, §§   116-18, 29   November   2016; Stoilkovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of   Macedonia , no. 29784/07, §§ 45-49, 18 July 2013; and Suverénní řád Maltézských rytířů – České velkopřevorství v. the Czech Republic , no.   15440/22, §§ 71-78, 11   September 2025)?   2.     In respect of the remainder of the applicants’ complaints under Article   13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, do they disclose a violation of these provisions, as alleged by the applicants?   The parties are invited to support their arguments in respect of the above questions with examples of   relevant case-law   of the domestic courts.