On 27 April 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has proclaimed the Judgement No.28-П in the case on the review of constitutionality of Article 32 (item 1.2. of part 1) of the Federal Law «On Insurance Pensions». The hearing in connection with the complaint of citizen E.P. Rostova took place on 19 February 2026.Background
Elena Rostova was born on the territory of the Kazakh SSR. Later, she moved to and resided on the territory of the Uzbek SSR and the Republic of Uzbekistan, where she gave birth to three children in 1987, 1990, and 1992. Since May 1998, she has been a citizen of the Russian Federation.
In 2024, she applied to the Social Fund of the Kemerovo Oblast – Kuzbass for an early old‑age pension on the grounds provided for by the contested provision: due to reaching the age of 57, having at least 15 years of insurance period, and having given birth to and raised three children to the age of 8. However, she was refused. The authorities noted that in 2022, the 1992 Agreement on Guarantees of the Rights of Citizens of CIS Member States in the Field of Pensions ceased to be in effect. In the absence of special regulation, the applicant’s pension must be granted on a general basis and the fact of giving birth to and raising children to the age of 8, if this took place on the territory of another state, cannot be taken into account. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the refusal in ordinary courts and appealed to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Position of the applicant
According to the applicant, the contested provision is inconsistent with Articles 7, 19 (part 1), 38 (parts 1 and 2), 39 (part 1), 55 (part 3), and 67.1 (part 4) of the Constitution, as it excludes the possibility of early assignment of an old age insurance pension to mothers of many children because their children were born in the USSR or on the territory of a foreign state that was previously part of the USSR.
Position of the Court
The Constitution stipulates that state pensions, benefits and other guarantees of social protection are established in Russia, including those aimed at supporting the family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood. Furthermore, another important field of Russian state policy is assisting compatriots in returning to their historical homeland. This activity also has constitutional significance.
Determining the conditions and procedure for the exercise of the right to pension provision, including the grounds for acquiring that right by certain categories of citizens, falls within the competence of the legislator. Among the circumstances predetermining the emergence of the right to early old age insurance pension, the legislator is entitled to include, inter alia, the performance by a person of a socially significant role through which the goals of demographic policy are achieved. The reduction of the retirement age due to the birth and upbringing of children is an additional guarantee of social protection for mothers who have performed socially significant functions associated with increased workloads, physical and material costs.
According to the literal meaning of the contested provision, the right to early pension provision, subject to compliance with other conditions, must be granted to women who have given birth to and raised three children until they reach the age of eight, regardless of the territory of the state in which the children were born and raised, at least if the mother and her children are Russian citizens. However, the territorial divisions of the Pension and Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation have adopted an approach of refusing early assignment of old‑age insurance pensions to women in a situation similar to that of E. Rostova. Moreover, judicial decisions on this issue are not uniform.
The practice of the Fund’s divisions and the courts that refuse to grant claims of such mothers for the obligation of the Fund to assign early pensions may have been motivated by the concerns about early assignment of pensions to women whose children, unlike the mother, have not established a legal connection with Russia or have lost it. However, if at the time of the mother’s application for a pension her children have also become Russian citizens, the fact that they were born and raised on the territory of a foreign state cannot fundamentally affect the exercise of the mother’s right to early assignment of an old age insurance pension.
The contested provision complies with the Constitution. It cannot serve as a basis for refusing early assignment of a pension to a woman in a situation such as E. Rostova’s. Any other interpretation of this provision would not only fail to correspond to its literal meaning but would also, in violation of the principle of equality, place mothers of many children who are Russian citizens in different positions solely on the basis of the birthplace of their children, who are also Russian citizens at the time of applying for a pension. Given that such a criterion for differentiating the conditions of pension provision for this category of citizens is not provided by law, it would have no reasonable justification and would be inconsistent with the constitutionally significant objectives of possible restrictions on human and civil rights and freedoms. Moreover, any other interpretation of this provision would conflict with the constitutional imperatives concerning the priority of state policy directed at improving the country’s demography and supporting big families, as well as facilitating the integration into Russian society of compatriots - citizens of the former Soviet Union - who move to Russia for permanent residence.
The interpretation given by the Constitutional Court does not extend to cases regulated by international treaties of the Russian Federation on pension provision.
The applicant’s case, as well as the cases of other women who made the same claims and were refused on the same grounds, is subject to review in accordance with the established procedure, provided there are no other obstacles to such review.
Presiding Judge Valery Dmitrievich ZORKIN
Judge Rapporteur Aleksandr Vladimirovich KONOVALOV