The judgement on refusal to re-calculate pension to an individual, who receives pension from two countries, is upheld
4 June, 2015
On 4 June, the Department of Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the Administrative regional court, which left the decision of the State Social Insurance Agency unaltered. The foregoing decision rejected to perform re-calculation of pension to an individual, grounding on the fact that the individual did not make a choice to receive age pension in accordance with the Treaty on Cooperation in Field of Social Security signed between the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation, or to receive pension of a citizen of the Russian Federation. The judgement of the Supreme Court may not be appealed.
The applicant is the citizen of the Russian Federation, who lives in Latvia. Until 19 January 2011, when the Treaty on Cooperation in Field of Social Security signed between the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation (further – the Treaty) entered into force, the applicant was granted and she has received both age pension of the Russian Federation and the age-pension of the Republic of Latvia. In November 2011, the applicant addressed the State Social Insurance Agency with application regarding re-calculation (increase) of Latvian age pension for pension capital accumulated in Latvia after 1 December 2010. The Agency refused to make re-calculation, because the applicant did not choose to receive age pension in accordance with the Treaty, or the pension of the citizen of the Russian Federation.
The Supreme Court accepted considerations included in the judgement of the appellate instance court, namely, that neither applicant’s right to property nor the principle of legal certainty is breached in particular case. The applicant’s right to social security is not breached as well, because the applicant continues to receive age pension from both countries, even in increased amount, in total. Moreover, the applicant’s right to receive increase of pension due to accumulated pension capital depends on applicant’s own choice to review pension in accordance with provisions of the Treaty, or to continue to receive pensions from both countries in previous amount.
The Supreme Court pointed out in its judgement that selective application of legal provisions, as desired by the applicant, namely, that, preserving right to pensions previously granted by both countries, re-calculation of pension of the applicant only would be performed, observing accumulated additional pension capital, is inadmissible.
Information prepared by Baiba Kataja, the Press secretary of the Supreme Court
Telephone: 67020396; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org