Andrejeva v. Latvia
Encyclopedia
Andrejeva v. Latvia 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
.
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.
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 accepted that the difference in treatment between non-citizens and citizens pursued at least one legitimate aim that was broadly compatible with the general objectives of the Convention, namely the protection of the country’s economic system. However, it didn't find a “reasonable relationship of proportionality” between the legitimate aim pursued and the means employed. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, by 16 votes to 1.
didn't find violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case, considering that saying or implying that Latvia has some automatic obligations stemming from the Soviet period would defy the fact that the occupation and annexation of Latvia were illegal in international law (para. 22., italicized by I. Ziemele).
In order to implement the judgment, amendments to the State Pensions Act were adopted in the first reading. They foresee to abolish discrimination by cancelling rights of citizens of Latvia to receive pensions for all time worked in the USSR outside Latvia, so that both citizens and non-citizens would receive pensions for this time only in certains cases. In December, 2009, the deciding on the amendments was postponed.
On October 12, 2009, Mrs. Andrejeva submitted an application to the administrative court, since she was refused to recalculate her pension by authorities. She died in April, 2010, while the case on recalculating the pension was still pending.
In February, 2011, the Constitutional Court of Latvia found the provisions in question compatible with the provisions of constitution and ECHR. In August, 2011, a new application to the ECtHR concerning those provisions was registered.
As of October, 2011, no information on the implementation of the judgment was provided to the relevant bodies of the Council of Europe.
European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is a supra-national court established by the European Convention on Human Rights and hears complaints that a contracting state has violated the human rights enshrined in the Convention and its protocols. Complaints can be brought by individuals or...
in 2009. It has concerned ex parte
Ex parte
Ex parte is a Latin legal term meaning "from one party" .An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present. In Australian, Canadian, U.K., Indian and U.S...
proceedings and discrimination in calculating retirement pensions for non-citizens of Latvia
Non-citizens (Latvia)
Non-citizens in Latvian law are individuals who are not citizens of Latvia or any other country but, who, in accordance with the Latvian law "Regarding the status of citizens of the former USSR who possess neither Latvian nor other citizenship", have the right to a non-citizen passport issued by...
.
Facts
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.
Court's proceedings
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 SlivenkoSlivenko v. Latvia
Slivenko v. Latvia was a case argued before the European Court of Human Rights and decided in 2003.-Facts:Ms. T. Slivenko was born in Estonia in 1959 and at the age of one month she moved to Latvia together with her parents. Her husband, N. Slivenko, born in 1952, was transferred to Latvia in 1977...
and Ždanoka
Tatjana Ždanoka
Tatyana Arkad'evna Zhdanok, , born May 8, 1950 in Riga, is a Latvian politician and Member of the European Parliament and a co-Chairperson of For Human Rights in United Latvia; part of the European Greens–European Free Alliance group. Zhdanok is co-chairperson of ForHRUL since 2001...
, on 18 February 2009.
The applicant was represented before the court by V. Buzajevs
Vladimirs Buzajevs
Vladimirs Buzajevs or Vladimir Buzayev, , born October 8, 1951 in Zhukovka, Bryansk Region, Russia, is a Latvian politician and Member of the 8th and 9th Saeima for For Human Rights in United Latvia...
and A. Dimitrovs, members of Latvian Human Rights Committee
Latvian Human Rights Committee
Latvian Human Rights Committee is a human rights non-governmental organization in Latvia. It is member of international human rights and anti-racism NGOs FIDH, AEDH and ENAR. Co-chairpersons of LHRC since 2004 are Aleksejs Dimitrovs, Genadijs Kotovs and Natalija Jolkina...
.
Judgment concerning Article 6
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.Judgment concerning Article 14 and Article 1 of the 1st protocol
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).The Court accepted that the difference in treatment between non-citizens and citizens pursued at least one legitimate aim that was broadly compatible with the general objectives of the Convention, namely the protection of the country’s economic system. However, it didn't find a “reasonable relationship of proportionality” between the legitimate aim pursued and the means employed. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, by 16 votes to 1.
Partly dissenting opinion
Judge Ineta ZiemeleIneta Ziemele
Ineta Ziemele is Latvian jurist and a judge of European Court of Human Rights since April 27 2005. She graduated from Law Faculty of the University of Latvia in 1993 and continued her studies in Sweden, where she earned Masters degree in International law She went on to earn her doctors degree...
didn't find violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case, considering that saying or implying that Latvia has some automatic obligations stemming from the Soviet period would defy the fact that the occupation and annexation of Latvia were illegal in international law (para. 22., italicized by I. Ziemele).
Just satisfaction and implementation of the judgment
N. Andrejeva was awarded 6500 EUR: 5000 EUR in respect of all damage sustained and 1500 EUR in respect of costs and expenses .In order to implement the judgment, amendments to the State Pensions Act were adopted in the first reading. They foresee to abolish discrimination by cancelling rights of citizens of Latvia to receive pensions for all time worked in the USSR outside Latvia, so that both citizens and non-citizens would receive pensions for this time only in certains cases. In December, 2009, the deciding on the amendments was postponed.
On October 12, 2009, Mrs. Andrejeva submitted an application to the administrative court, since she was refused to recalculate her pension by authorities. She died in April, 2010, while the case on recalculating the pension was still pending.
In February, 2011, the Constitutional Court of Latvia found the provisions in question compatible with the provisions of constitution and ECHR. In August, 2011, a new application to the ECtHR concerning those provisions was registered.
As of October, 2011, no information on the implementation of the judgment was provided to the relevant bodies of the Council of Europe.