On 31 March 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted Judgement No. 19-П in accordance with Article 47.1 of the Federal Constitutional Law «On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation». The case on the review of constitutionality of Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation as well as Article 242.1 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation was considered in connection with the complaint of citizen V.A.Levykina.Background
Since 2015, the applicant had been receiving an old-age pension from the pension authority of the Donetsk People’s Republic. Since 2017, she has been permanently residing in Russia, and in 2019 she acquired Russian citizenship. In this connection, she applied to the Pension Fund in the Kolsky District of Murmansk Oblast for the assignment of an old-age insurance pension. Her pension record was requested from the Donetsk authority; the payment at her previous place of residence was terminated in June 2019, and the new pension was assigned in September 2019. However, she was refused the assignment of a pension for the period from June to September.
In 2021, this decision was declared unlawful. The court ordered the pension authority to recalculate the insurance pension. The amount was paid to the applicant on 9 December 2022. In June 2023, the district court granted the applicant’s claim for the indexation of the awarded amounts. However, the appellate instance overturned this decision, stating that the decision adopted in 2021 did not require the recovery of funds but rather obliged the pension authority to recalculate the pension and assign it.
Position of the Court
The Constitution, guaranteeing everyone the right to judicial protection of their rights and freedoms, proceeds from the necessity of creating effective mechanisms for the timely and full enforcement of judicial acts. Indexation protects the property interests of the claimant from inflation in the period between the issuance of the court decision and its actual enforcement.
In cases brought by pensioners concerning the non-payment of insurance pensions, including for past periods, courts typically do not specify the exact amounts to be paid. To determine their size, pension authorities must calculate and accrue the payments due on the basis of the court decision. It is assumed that such a calculation is carried out fairly quickly. Nevertheless, time may pass from the moment the court decision is issued, or even from the moment it enters into legal force, until its execution, during which the funds to be paid on the basis of the court decision are exposed to inflationary risk.
A literal reading of the contested article of the Civil Procedure Code, the concept of «awarded monetary sums» does not allow the inclusion of the amount of the insurance pension, the payment of which is caused by an order obliging the pension authority to recalculate and assign the sums subject to payment. However, the substance of these decisions still consists of recognising the individual’s right to receive the amount of the unpaid insurance pension (or part thereof) for the past period. As of the date of the actual enforcement of the court decision, the corresponding sum (as a result of the actions to recalculate and assign the pension) is known. Therefore, the specific wording of court decisions recognising pensioners’ right to payment of this sum cannot be considered as limiting the right to its indexation under Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Code in the event of untimely enforcement of the court decision. An exception is the case where the recalculation requires establishing additional facts that are not at the disposal of the pension fund and cannot be promptly obtained by it through interdepartmental cooperation.
The starting date for indexation in the contested article of the Civil Procedure Code is determined differently depending on the procedure for enforcement the court decision: either under the ordinary procedure, including through enforcement proceedings in the absence of voluntary execution, or under the special procedure where enforcement is directed against public budget funds.
On the one hand, enforcement of a court decision indicating the necessity of recalculation and accrual of a pension by the pension authority should be voluntarily. On the other hand, this involves funds from the budget of a state extra-budgetary fund, and the stability of financial relations requires granting the pension authority the opportunity to take the necessary organisational and technical measures or to appeal the decision. Therefore, the general rule of indexation from the date of the court decision should not apply in this instance. Accordingly, the issue of the starting date for indexation in the case under consideration is not resolved by the normative regulation.
The contested provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution. They prevent the indexation of monetary sums not paid to a pensioner in a timely manner on the basis of a court decision obliging the pension authority to perform actions to recalculate and assign the unpaid insurance pension for a past period, except in the case where the recalculation and assignment require the additional establishment of facts, information about which is not at the disposal of the pension authority and cannot be promptly obtained through interdepartmental cooperation. The inability to clearly determine the day from which the indexation period for these amounts begins is also considered unconstitutional.
The legislator should make the necessary amendments. Until such amendments are made, the relevant amounts are subject for indexation, and the indexation period begins on the first day following the end of the month following the month in which the court decision entered into legal force.
The applicant’s case is subject to review.
Press Service of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation