Acceso usuarios
Oleksandr Pryimenko
The European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence generally recognises that there is no violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms when the state grants the right to a survivor’s pension to spouses and does not grant it to different-sex de facto couples. An analysis of cases Muñoz Díaz v. Spain, Serife Yigit v. Turkey, and four decisions against Spain from 2023 to 2025 (Domenech Aradilla and Rodríguez González, Valverde Digón, del Pino Ortiz and others, Mendieta Borrego) has established that the applicant’s good faith, legitimate expectation and personal situation awareness may influence the recognition of a violation by the state. Ukraine, both in its legislation and in its administrative and judicial practice, has never provided de facto partners the right to a survivor’s pension. Therefore, it did not create grounds for the existence of legitimate expectation. However, it should be noted that the Court additionally relies on current trends and the degree of consensus between member states. Given the prevalence of de facto couples, this provides a basis for initiating a discussion on granting them in Ukraine the right to a survivor’s pension.
La jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos reconoce en general que no existe violación del Convenio para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos y de las Libertades Fundamentales cuando el Estado otorga el derecho a una pensión de supervivencia a los cónyuges y no la otorga a las parejas de hecho de distinto sexo. Un análisis de los casos Muñoz Díaz contra España, Serife Yigit contra Turquía y de cuatro decisiones contra España en el periodo 2023-2025 (Domenech Aradilla y Rodríguez González, Valverde Digón, del Pino Ortiz y otros, Mendieta Borrego), ha establecido que la buena fe, la expectativa legítima y el conocimiento de la situación personal
