Andrejeva v. Latvia
| Andrejeva v. Latvia | |
|---|---|
| Court | European Court of Human Rights |
| Decided | 18 February 2009 |
| Citation(s) | ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0218JUD005570700 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | CC of Latvia case No. 2001-02-0106 |
| Subsequent action(s) | CC of Latvia case No. 2010-20-0106 |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority: Costa, Rozakis, Bratza, Lorenzen, Tulkens, Casadevall, Cabral Barreto, Bîrsan, Vajić, Gyulumyan, Spielmann, Björgvinsson, Šikuta, Villiger, Berro-Lefèvre, Kalaydjieva Partial dissent: Ziemele | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Jean-Paul Costa, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Peer Lorenzen, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Corneliu Bîrsan, Nina Vajić, Alvina Gyulumyan, Dean Spielmann, David Thór Björgvinsson, Ján Šikuta, Ineta Ziemele, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Zdravka Kalaydjieva |
| Keywords | |
| age pension, citizenship, discrimination | |
Andrejeva v. Latvia (55707/00) was a case decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in 2009. It has concerned ex parte proceedings and discrimination in calculating retirement pensions for non-citizens of Latvia.
Ms. N. Andrejeva, a non-citizen of Latvia, was employed at a recycling plant at the Olaine chemical complex, formerly a public body under the authority of the USSR Ministry of Chemical Industry and located in Latvia.
According to the Latvian State Pensions Act, only periods of work in Latvia could be taken into account in calculating the pensions of non-citizens of Latvia, unlike citizens of Latvia.
As the applicant had been employed from 1973 to 1990 by entities based in Kiev and Moscow, her pension was calculated solely in respect of the time she had worked before and after that period. Latvian courts agreed with the administration.
Besides, during the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Latvia, N. Andrejeva was unable to take part in the hearing of 6 October 1999 as it had started earlier than scheduled.
Application was lodged with the Court on 27 February 2000. It was declared partly admissible on 11 July 2006 (meanwhile, the Constitutional Court of Latvia has found the provisions in question constitutional, hearing a case after a complaint by MPs of ForHRUL and LSDSP). On 11 December 2007 the Chamber has relinquished the case to the Grand Chamber. The Grand Chamber has held public hearing on 25 June 2008 and delivered its judgment, which was the third Grand Chamber judgment on the merits in a case against Latvia at all, after Slivenko and Ždanoka, on 18 February 2009.
The applicant was represented before the court by V. Buzajevs and A. Dimitrovs, members of Latvian Human Rights Committee.
The Court has unanimously concluded that the fact N. Andrejeva was unable to take part in the hearing of 6 October 1999 as it had started earlier than scheduled was violating Article 6 of ECHR.
Concerning government's objections that "In view of the financial burden borne by Latvia and the limited capacity of its national budget, it was not unreasonable for it to assume full responsibility for the pensions of its own citizens alone" (para. 71) and "the situation complained of was largely the fault of the applicant herself, who had refused to apply for naturalisation despite having been entitled to do so since 1998. The sooner she did so, the sooner she would receive the desired portion of her pension" (para. 72), the Court concluded that Ms. Andrejeva already "has the status of a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia, the only State with which she has any stable legal ties and thus the only State which, objectively, can assume responsibility for her in terms of social security" (para. 88) and that "dismissing the victim's claims on the ground that he or she could have avoided the discrimination by altering one of the factors in question – for example, by acquiring a nationality – would render Article 14 devoid of substance" (para. 91).
...
Wikipedia