CONSTRUING OF APPLICATION OF THE AGREEMENTS GOVERNING THE ISSUES OF ENSURING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF CITIZENS IN THE CIS MEMBER-STATES

Construing of application of the agreements governing provision of pensions to the Commonwealth citizens on the whole

Judgment No. 01-1/6-04 dated April 7, 2005 on construing the Agreement on guarantees for the citizens of the member-States of the Commonwealth of Independent States in the field of provision of pensions, dated March 13, 1992  regulates the issue, whether the States which are the parties to this Agreement shall, in order to grant the right to the pension (including the preferential-based pensions and the long-service pensions) to the citizens of the States which are the parties to the Agreement, consider length of service gained by such citizens in the territories of the States which formed the USSR and later have become the parties to such mentioned Agreement.

It follows from the contents of Item 2 Article 6, that when calculating length of service in order to grant the right to the pension to the citizens of the States which are the parties to the Agreement, including the above cases, the following shall be taken into account: the length of service gained by such citizens in the territory of any State, which is a party to the Agreement, from the date of signing thereof by the State which citizenship is considered; length of service gained by the citizens in the territory of the States which formed the USSR and later have failed to become the parties to the Agreement, till the date of coming thereof into effect.

Taking account of length of service gained by the citizens in the territories of the States which have failed to sign the Agreement dated March 13, 1992 shall, after coming the latter into effect, be governed by bilateral agreements signed between the respective CIS member-States.

The Agreement dated March 13, 1992 shall not impose responsibility to take account of length of service gained by the citizens in the territories of any other CIS member-States, on the States which are not the parties to the Agreement. Nevertheless, the CIS Economic Court believes that the States shall be required to take account of length of service gained by the citizens in the territory of the former Soviet Union, by virtue of obligations assumed by the States at signing the Treaty on Formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States dated December 8, 1991, and the Protocol to the same dated December 21, 1991 (Article 2 of the Agreement dated December 8, 1991 establishes guarantees of any civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights), and on the basis of the International Law principles and practice accepted in the CIS member-States.

Construing of application of the agreements governing social and legal guarantees for military men, persons transferred to the reserve, and for their family members

Four judgments of the CIS Economic Court were devoted to construing of the Agreement on social and legal guarantees for military men, persons transferred to the reserve, and their family members, dated February 14, 1992, namely: Article 1 in respect of the method of payment of travel costs incurred by a military man traveling from one CIS member-State to another one when on leave (Judgment No. 01-1/5-98 dated April 15, 1999; Statement No. 01-1/5-98 dated October 14, 1999); Paragraph six Part one Article 2 in respect of possible exercising of the right, when crossing the Commonwealth national boundary, to convey personal property without any duties, taxes and payments collected, except for the articles which export/import is prohibited by the legislation of the respective State (Judgment No. 01-1/3-03 dated December 16, 2003); Article 3 of the Agreement dated February 14, 1992, and Article 1 and Part one Article 2 of the Agreementon Dwellings Provision to Military Men, Persons Retired from Military Service, and their Family Members, in the territory of the States which are the members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, dated March 28, 1997 (Advisory Opinion No. 01-1/4-02 dated December 11, 2002) concerning existence of the right of the persons, who earlier were on military service of the USSR Armed Forces and continued their military service in the armed forces of any CIS member-State, to be provided with dwellings in the other CIS member-State when moving to its territory after retirement from such military service.

Judgments of the CIS Economic Court on such mentioned cases are based on the following premises.

Any issues related to social and legal guarantees of military men, provision of pensions including, shall be settled taking account of the right of such military men to: be transferred for service or retire/resign from one CIS member-State to another; retain, after retirement from such service, his citizenship of the CIS member-State granted to him prior to enlistment for/employment in the military service and; become a citizen of the State of residence; stay for permanent residence in the territory of such State or choose any other place of residence. Exercising of the above rights may not be restricted by any time limits.

The Agreement dated February 14, 1992 has a framework nature. It contains general principles of social and legal protection of military men, persons retired from military service, and their family members, which principles shall be subject to implementation within the national legislations of the respective States. Maintaining the level of rights and benefits earlier granted by the legislation of the former Soviet Union to service men, persons retired from military service, and their family members, inadmissibility of unilateral restriction thereof, and the right of the CIS member-States to take appropriate measures in order to improve social protection of such category of the citizens with a view to create proper living standard and conditions for service, were provided as a basic imperative principle of the Agreement.

The CIS Economic Court has established that in spite of the fact that the provisions contained in Paragraph six Part one Article 2 of the Agreement dated February 14, 1992 fail to specify the grounds for crossing the national boundary by military men or persons retired from military service or their family members, nevertheless the complex analysis of the Agreement taking account of its subject and purposes has enabled the Court to come to a conclusion that for the tasks of such mentioned Agreement crossing of the national boundary shall be connected with changing the place of service or the place of residence of the above persons.

In connection with the fact that non-adoption, by the States, of appropriate regulatory legal acts aimed at ensuring social and legal guarantees for military men, persons transferred to the reserve, and their family members violates the rights of such categories of persons, the CIS Economic Court recommends that the States which are the parties to the Agreement of February 14, 1992 and which have failed to fulfill their obligations under Article 4 of the Article, should settle this issue, including the right of military men, the persons transferred to the reserve, and their family members, to beneficial carriage of their personal property.

Article 3 of the Protocol dated January 25, 2000, adopted within implementation of the Agreement dated February 14, 1992, directly establishes the right of military men, persons retired from military service, and their family members, when traveling to their new place of service or new place of residence, to convey, at crossing the national boundary, their personal property without any customs payments, taxes and fees (customs duties) collected, except for the articles which export/import is prohibited by the legislation of the respective State. The CIS Economic Court believes that such norm has a direct action and shall be subject to application irrespective of the provisions contained in the national legislations of the State which are parties to the Protocol.

Within construing Articles 1 of the Agreement dated February 14, 1992 (Judgment No. 01‑1/5‑98 dated April 15, 1999; Statement No. 01-1/5-98 dated October 14, 1999), the CIS Economic Court has stressed that such Agreement prolongs validity of the Regulations of the Privileges Granted to Military Men, Persons Liable for Call-Up, Persons Retired from Military Service, and Their Families, as approved by Ordinance of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 193 dated February 17, 1981, according to which such mentioned persons were granted the right to travel at the expense of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR when traveling on their regular leaves.

After special acts of the national legislation have been adopted, the procedure and terms of reimbursement of expenses incurred by the service men for travel on leave, shall be governed as one of the elements of their status by the legislation of the respective CIS member-State. Should the legislative acts of the Commonwealth member-State fail to provide for procedure of reimbursement of expenses incurred by a service man and his family members for travel on leave, the norms of the legislation of the former Soviet Union shall be applied. The CIS Economic Court has stressed that such mentioned rules shall apply to military men (employed in the service prior to February 14, 1992) during their subsequent uninterruptible service, i.e. until retirement of transfer to the reserve. In case of repeated employment in the military service, the person shall acquire the status of a military man who is supported according to the legislation of the respective member-State in force as of the date of such repeated employment, which norms may differ from the norms of the Union legislation.

The CIS Economic Court has explained that the term “the level of rights and benefits” used in Article 1 of the Agreement dated February 14, 1992 directly applies to the scope and nature of material benefits received by the eligible persons. In the opinion of the Court, the right to free travel on leave shall apply to the entire territory of the respective State, including the enclaves (if any). Travels of military men on leaves abroad, including the same within the borders of the former Soviet Union, shall be paid at the expense of personal funds of such military men, save as otherwise is provided for by the national legislation.

The rule of retaining the scope of rights and benefits at the level established by the legislation of the former Soviet Union shall not apply to such persons, and such level may be ensured by the States which are the parties to the Agreement dated February 14, 1992 on voluntary basis only.

Within its Advisory Opinion No. 01‑1/4‑02 dated December 11, 2002 the CIS Economic Court has come to a conclusion that Article 3 of the Agreement dated February 14, 1992 is of a limited nature: in the subject sphere, it applies only to military men and their family members who have no dwellings or are in need of improvement thereof; but it does not touch upon the issues of provision of dwellings to the persons retired from military service, and establishes only the right of such mentioned persons to live in the living quarters occupied by them. The Special Agreement signed by the CIS member-States on March 28, 1997 is an agreement of a special nature which gives concrete expression to the Agreement dated February 14, 1992, including the right of persons retired from military service to be provided with dwellings in case of their move to another State within the Commonwealth. Such right shall be guaranteed by the number of measures taken by the States where such persons have had their previous place of service (residence), including the cases when dwellings were purchased for them in the place of permanent residence chosen by them, subject to both return of their dwellings previously occupied by them in their previous places of residence, and in case when such previously occupied dwellings do not exist (if such persons were not provided with the same).

The Court has mentioned that the Agreement of March 28, 1997 came into effect only for the four member-States to the Agreement of February 14, 1992 (the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, and the Republic of Tajikistan). Moreover, the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Belarus made certain reservations when joining the mentioned Agreement. 

The Protocol of January 25, 2000 to the Agreement dated February 14, 1992 established the housing rights of service men retired from military service by analogy with the Agreement dated May 28, 1997, including the right of such people to exchange living quarters, occupied by them, with the citizens of any of other State within the Commonwealth, in connection with their move to such other State within the Commonwealth for permanent residence.

It follows from the foregoing, that the national legislations of the CIS member-States do not contain any coordinated clauses governing the issue of provision of military men retired from military service with dwellings, and depend, from contansive angle, on how such issue is regulated by the Agreement dated February 14, 1992 or the Agreement dated March 28, 1997, to which Agreement such States are the parties. The CIS Economic Court has established the norms to be applied to this sphere in respect of particular States within the Commonwealth.

A number of judgments of the CIS Economic Court was devoted to construing the issues related to social insurance and payment of pensions to military men, their family members, and persons discharged from military service. The CIS Economic Court has established that when examining such issues one should be governed by both the Agreement on procedure of pensions provision to military men and their family members, and the state insurance of military men within the CIS member-States (dated May 15, 1992), and the Agreement on social and legal guarantees for military men, persons transferred to the reserve, and their family members (dated February 14, 1992). The latter establishes the principles on which any social and legal guarantees shall be provided to the above persons, namely: the scope of rights granted to the same may not be lower that that earlier established by any legislative and other regulatory acts of the former Soviet Union; the rights and freedoms, including the right to be paid a pension and enjoy medical care and any other social welfare, shall be ensured in their entirety.

Judgment No. 13/95/С-1/6-96 dated February 28, 1996 on construing the application of the Agreement on procedure of pensions provision to the military men and their family members, and the state insurance benefits to military men of the States which are the members of Commonwealth of Independent States, dated May 15, 1992 establishes whether the Agreement of May 15, 1992 applies to welfare payments to the family members of deceased military men and military pensioners.

The CIS Economic Court believes that the expression “and other kinds of social welfare” used in Article 2 of the Agreement dated February 14, 1992 includes also welfare payments which are stipulated for by the legislations of the Commonwealth member-States as a kind of social welfare.

As far as dependence of the amount of certain welfare payments, due to the family members of deceased military pensioners, on the amount of pensions of the latter has been established by the legislation of the Soviet Union and the Commonwealth member-States, hence, in the opinion of the CIS Economic Court, the scope of application of the Agreement dated May 15, 1992 covers provision of military men of the CIS member-States and their family members with pensions, compulsory state insurance benefits, welfare payments due to the family members of deceased military pensioners (in particular, one-time bread-winner loss dowries, funeral grant), in the amount depending on the amount of pensions of such persons retired from military service. Such welfare payments shall be granted on terms, according to the norms and the procedure established by the legislation of the respective State which is a party to the Agreement dated May 15, 1992, under which the pension has been paid to such person retired from military service, by the date of his death.

Judgment No.С-1/11-96 dated September 4, 1996 on construing the Agreement signed by and between the member-States of the Commonwealth of Independent States, on social and legal guarantees for military men, persons transferred to the reserve, and their family members, dated February 14, 1992; the Agreement on guarantees for the citizens of the member-States of the Commonwealth of Independent States in the field of provision of pensions, dated March 13, 1992; the Agreement on procedure of pensions provision to military men and their family members, and the state insurance benefits to military men of the member-States within the Commonwealth of Independent States, dated May 15, 1992 and Statement No. C-1/11-96 dated March 20, 1997 concern the issue of compulsory state insurance of military men and their family members residing at the territory of the States which are the members to the Agreement dated May 15, 1992. The provisions of such mentioned agreements which specify, the legislation of which member-State (the State where the military men have been on service or the State where the military men and their family members are residing) shall govern provision of pensions to military men and their family members, compulsory state insurance of military men, and which also specify from what financial resources of which State the insurance benefits and one-time dowries shall be payable to military men or the family members of deceased military men, — are used to be construed ambiguously.

The CIS Economic Court has established that the Agreement dated may 15, 1992 specifies the law and order applied to the field of provision of pensions and compulsory state insurance to the persons mentioned therein in different ways. Provision of pensions to military men and their family members shall be carried out in accordance with the legislations of the States where such military men and their family members are residing, taking account of the long-service in the territories of the States where such military men have been on service (Article 2 of the Agreement). The state social insurance of military men shall be carried out at the place where such military men are on service. Proceeding from specific character of relations concerned with the state social insurance, payment of social insurance welfare shall be carried out according to the legislation of the State where such military men themselves are residing (or have resided as of the date of signing the insurance agreement). Payment of any sum insured to the family members of a perished military man shall be made by the insurance organization or any other authorized body of the State in which armed forces such military man has been on service and where he has been insured, irrespective of his family members’ place of residence.

Judgment No. 01-1/5-99 dated January 20, 2000 on construing Paragraph one Article 1 and Article 2 of the Agreement on procedure of pensions provision to military men and their family members, and the state insurance benefits to military men of the member-States within the Commonwealth of Independent States, dated May 15, 1992specifies, the legislation of which State — the State where military men are residing (and, hence, the State where the pensions were granted) or the State where such military men have been on service — shall govern preferential long-service calculation for military men retired from the Armed Forces of the USSR for the period of their service in the Armed Forces of the USSR in the territories of the former union republics; and for military men who were on service in any other State, were transferred on service to the armed forces of the State of their new domiciliary, and retired from such armed forces.

Also a question has been discussed, whether it is possible to apply the legislation of the member-State where a military man has been on service (namely, the Republic of Kazakhstan) if such State provides for the grounds for preferential long-service calculation which have not been provided for by the legislation of the former Soviet Union in force during the period where such military man was on service.

The Agreement dated May 15, 1992, which has come into effect from the moment of signing thereof by the member-States, shall apply to the provision of pensions to the military men retired from the armed forces after adoption thereof.

Proceeding from the contents of Article 2 of the Agreement dated May 15, 1992, the CIS Economic Court has established that the States which are the parties to the Agreement, when fixing the pensions to military men, shall also include their service in any other State which is a party to the Agreement into their long-service, in particular, for preferential calculation thereof, on the grounds of the legislation of such other State irrespective of the time of adoption thereof (in particular, in the period when such States have formed a part of the Soviet Union), as the right to provision of pensions is exercised after adoption, by the State where the military men were on service, of the appropriate legislation. Should the appropriate issues be not regulated at the national level, the legislation of the former Soviet Union shall be applied.

In connection with the fact that the cause for the inquiry was given by difference of positions of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan, the CIS Economic Court clarifies that according to Part one Item 2 of the Agreement dated May 15, 1992, the right to calculation of preferential long-service in the USSR Armed Forces in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, within the period from August 29, 1949 till January 1, 1992 when it formed a part of the USSR, shall be granted, on the grounds of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan ‘On Social Welfare of the Citizens Who Suffered from Nuclear Tests in the Proving Ground of Semipalatinsk’, dated December 18, 1992, to military men who have continued their service in the armed forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan and have retired from the same by reason of move to another state or who have been transferred to the armed forces of any other States which are the parties to the Agreement of May 15, 1992, after coming the Law of December 18, 1992 into effect.

The CIS Economic Court has also emphasized, that preferential long-service of military men who have been on service in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan and have retired from the same by reason of move to another State or have been transferred to the armed forces of another State which is a party to the Agreement of May 15, 1992, within the period from January 1, 1993 till December 31, 1997, was calculated on the grounds of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan ‘On Social Welfare of the Citizens Who Suffered from Nuclear Tests in the Proving Ground of Semipalatinsk’, dated December 18, 1992; but since January 1, 1998 such long service has been calculated on the ground of the Law ‘On Provision of Pensions in the Republic of Kazakhstan’ dated June 20, 1997, and Ordinance of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan ‘On Approval of the Rules for Calculation of Long-Service for Military Men, Workers of the Internal Affairs Bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Granting and Payment of One-Time Dowries’ No. 803 dated August 26, 1998 (Statement No. 01‑1/5‑99 dated November 18, 2004).

The CIS Economic Court, on its own initiative (Statement No. 01-1/5-99 dated October 18, 2004) and on demand of the CIS Executive Committee (Statement No. 01-1/5-99 dated November 14, 2001) has given explanations to Judgment No. 01-1/5-99 dated January 20, 2000. The Court has stressed that all issues of provision of pensions to military men, in particular, specification of the circle of persons entitled to be granted pensions, calculation of the length of service required for charging such pensions, as well as granting, calculation, payment, re-calculation of pensions shall be governed by the legislation of the State where the person, to whom such pension shall be provided, is residing. Long-service in any other State which is a party to the Agreement shall be taken into account, including the same calculated on preferential basis, in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation of the State in which territory the pensioner is residing.

As far as the level of rights and privileges granted to military men and their family members, including the right to provision of pensions, granted to such persons by the CIS member-States, may not be lower that that earlier established for the appropriate categories of persons by the legislation of the Soviet Union, so should the State where the military men or their family members are residing fail to adopt the appropriate normative act to regulate provision of pensions to such category of persons, or should such act exist but fail to regulate the rights of one or another category of military men (or their family members), or should any existing act worsen the conditions for military men and their family members as provided for by the legislative and other acts of the former USSR, then provision of pensions to such persons shall be carried out on terms, according to the norms and the procedure which were in force in the former USSR.

Judgment No. 01-1/1-02 dated June 24, 2002 on construing the Agreement on procedure of pensions provision to military men and their family members, and the state insurance benefits to military men of the member-States within the Commonwealth of Independent States, dated May 15, 1992, and the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on ensuring provision of pensions to the residents of Baikonur, the Republic of Kazakhstan, dated April 27, 1996 pertains to the issue, whether the norms of the Agreement dated April 27, 1996 (under which pensions to the citizens of Baikonur shall be provided according to the norms of the legislation of the Russian Federation) exclude application of the provisions contained in the Agreement dated May 15, 1992 which establishes that provision of pensions to, and compulsory state insurance of, military men in the territories of the CIS member-States shall be carried out on terms, according to the norms and procedure established by the legislations of the member-States in which territories such mentioned persons are residing (in respect of pensions payment to the former military men and their family members who are the citizens of the Russian Federation but are residing in Baikonur, the Republic of Kazakhstan).

The fact that the Republic of Kazakhstan, on the basis of the agreements reached on June 27, 2002 during the meeting of the Sub-Commission on Baikonur Complex, had ceased payment of pensions to military men and their family members who were the citizens of the Russian Federation but were residing in the Republic of Kazakhstan, from January 1, 2001, wasthe ground for applying to the CIS Economic Court.

The CIS Economic has noted that the mentioned Agreements have different scopes of application. The Agreement dated May 15, 1992 regulates the provision of pension to military men, persons transferred to the reserve, and their family members, and the Agreement dated April 27, 1996 regulates provision of pensions to the civil population of Baikonur. In this connection, the norms of the Agreement dated April 27, 1996 do not exclude application of the provisions contained in the Agreement dated May 15, 1992. Provision of pensions to military men, persons transferred to the reserve, and their family members, who are the citizens of the Russian Federation but are residing at Baikonur Complex shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement dated May 15, 1992.

Opportunity to change such procedure can occur in case of denouncement of the Agreement dated May 15, 1992 by either party or in case of signing a separate bi-lateral agreement on provision of pensions to such mentioned persons by and between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Construing of application of the agreements governing provision of pensions and social insurance to the employees of the bodies of internal affairs and office of public prosecutors

Judgment No. 01-1/7-03 dated May 13, 2004 on construing the Agreement on procedure of provision of pensions to, and the State social insurance of, the employees of the bodies of internal affairs and office of public prosecutor of the States within the Commonwealth of Independent States, dated December 24, 1993, establishes whether the rules set forth in Articles 1 to 3 of the Agreement shall apply to the senior officers, and to the rank and file, who, prior to their retirement, have been on service in the institutions and bodies of the punishment execution system, tax police, and in any other bodies not included into the bodies of internal affairs (hereinafter BIA) in certain States which are the parties to the Agreement.

The CIS Economic Court has noted that the Agreement dated December 24, 1993 is of a framework nature and establishes the governing role of the legislation in force in the place of residence of BIA rank and file, senior officers, and their family members, when providing pensions to such persons. This rule shall be adhered to in case of changing the place of residence. As of the date of adoption of the Agreement, the notion of the “BIA employee” had the same meaning and covered the same circle of persons in different CIS member-States. Subsequently, the systems of bodies included into the Ministries of Internal Affairs of the States which are the parties to the Agreement have undergone substantial changes entailing change in the circle of persons related to the BIA employees. In particular, the penitentiary bodies were excluded from the bodies of internal affairs in the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, the Republic of Tajikistan. Nevertheless, pensions are provided to the employees of such bodies in accordance with the rules established for the BIA employees.

The CIS Economic Court stresses that under condition of BIA system reformation, obligations of the States pertaining to provision of pensions to the senior officers, and rank and file who, prior to their retirement, have been on service in the bodies included into the bodies of internal affairs of the member-States as of the date of adoption of the Agreement of December 24, 1993, shall be adhered to. The States which are the parties to the Agreement dated December 24, 1993, when reorganizing their BIA systems, shall specify the bodies responsible for provision of pensions to the pensioners who have arrived at their territories, or shall take all measure to prevent from collision of their national legislations, in particular, through entering into bilateral or multilateral agreements.

Judgment No. 01-1/4-2001 dated May 23, 2002 on construing the Agreement on mutual offset of service in the bodies and institutions of the public prosecutor office in the States which are the members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, into the workers’ total time record and long service, dated November 25, 1998, concerning applicability of Article 2 of the Agreement to regulate mutual offset of the total time record and long service accumulated due to such persons’ labour in the territories of the CIS member-States in the bodies and institutions of the office of public prosecutor in the capacity of public prosecutors and investigators of the public prosecutor bodies, researchers and teachers of any research institutions and educational establishments under the office of public prosecutor (including time record and long service calculated on preferential basis), not only for calculation of their salary rises (additional payments), but also for establishing their right to pensions, length of their leaves, and calculation of average salaries retained during their annual leaves.

The CIS Economic Court has ascertained that when signing the Agreement dated November 25, 1998 the States deliberately excluded the issues of social welfare of the workers of the public prosecutor office from the subject-matter regulated by such Agreement, and in this connection broad interpretation of Article 2 of the Agreement dated November 25, 1998 is inadmissible.

Construing of applicability of the Agreements regulating compliance, of the States, with the norms providing for reduced trip tariff for disabled veterans and veterans of the Great Patriotic War

Advisory Opinion dated July 26, 2000 on construing the Agreement on mutual recognition of the right to reduced trip tariff for disabled veterans of the Great Patriotic War and veterans of the Great Patriotic War, and the persons put on an equal footing with the same, dated March 12, 1993, considers the right of the States which are the parties to the Agreement to cancel or reduce the scope of privileges established by such Agreement, by adoption of their national regulatory legal acts. The inquiry was caused by the fact that from March 12, 1993 in the number of the States a reduced tariffs to trips were cancelled, provision of disabled veterans of the Great Patriotic War and veterans of the Great Patriotic War with privilege tickets for travel by railway, air, water, or international motor transport for 2001 — 2005 (according to Article 7 of the Agreement) was unsettled, as well as in connection with complaints of the citizens of such States about refusal to grant them reduced tariff for travel from one CIS member-State to another.

The CIS Economic Court has ascertained, that in majority cases the legislations of the States which are the parties to the Agreement dated March 12, 1993 regulate the issues related to granting privilege trip tariff to disabled veterans of the Great Patriotic War, veterans of the Great Patriotic War, and the persons put on an equal footing with the same, but introduce restrictions by kinds of transport and subjects as compared to the Agreement dated March 12, 1993.

The CIS Economic Court has stressed that the States shall undertake to fulfill their respective obligations assumed under the Agreement, irrespective of provisions of their national legislations. Should any collision occur between the norms of the national law and the rules set forth in the Agreement, the rules of the latter shall be applied.

Judgment No. 01-1/2-03 dated June 24, 2003 on construing the Agreement on mutual recognition of the right to reduced trip tariff for disabled veterans of the Great Patriotic War and veterans of the Great Patriotic War, and the persons put on an equal footing with the same, dated March 12, 1993, relates to application of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 7 of the Agreement, on the following issues:

-         Whether enjoying seasonal privilege trip tariffs by disabled veterans of the Great Patriotic War, as stipulated for in Part three Article 2 of the Agreement dated March 12, 1993, excludes probability to grant privilege trip tariffs to the same as stipulated for in Parts one and two of the same Article and by Article 4 of such mentioned Agreement;

-         Whether there exist any restrictions in the number of trips made by disabled veterans of the Great Patriotic War, and the persons put on an equal footing with the same within the period when seasonal privilege trip tariffs (stipulated for by Part three Article 2 of the Agreement dated March 12, 1993) are in force;

-         What documents serve as a ground for purchase, by disabled veterans of the Great Patriotic War, and the persons put on an equal footing with the same, of a privilege ticket for travel within the period when seasonal privilege trip tariff (stipulated for by Part three Article 2 of the Agreement dated March 12, 1993) are in force.

The CIS Economic Court has come to a conclusion that the States which are the parties to the Agreement shall undertake to recognize, in their territories, the right of disabled veterans of the Great Patriotic War, veterans of the Great Patriotic War, and the persons put on an equal footing with the same, to privilege trip tariffs for travel by the appropriate kinds of transport both within the territory of their domicile State and when traveling from one State to another, or in the territories of any other States which are the parties to the Agreement.

Parts one, two, four Article 2, and Articles 3 and 4 of the Agreement establish the right of the I to III groups disabled veterans of the Great Patriotic War, their attendants, and persons put on an equal footing with the same, to privilege (free of charge of at 50% discount) trip tariff for one travel (in both ways) within a calendar year (from January 1 to December 31) by any one kind of transport, as set forth in Parts one and two Article 2 of the Agreement. By request of such persons, such right may be exercised at any time within the calendar year, the period of seasonal privileges including.

Part three Article 2 of the Agreement provides for maintaining, by the States which are the parties to the Agreement, of an additional (seasonal) privilege for travel of disabled veterans of the Great Patriotic War of all three groups, and persons put on an equal footing with the same, within the period from October 1 to May 15, without any restriction of the number of trip.

Enjoying of any seasonal privilege trip tariff by disabled veterans of the Great Patriotic Was, and persons put on an equal footing with the same, for travel by the kinds of transport mentioned in Part three Article 2 of the Agreement, does not exclude privileges granted to them according to Parts one and two Article 2 of the Agreement.

The list of documents that serve as a ground for purchase of a privilege ticket for travel shall be specified by Article 7 of the Agreement dated March 12, 1993. The Certificate of the Great Patriotic War Veteran shall be the ground for enjoying seasonal privileges.

Construing of application of the Agreements governing legal status of the refugees and forced migrants

Judgment No. С-1/14-96 dated September 11, 1996 on construing the Agreement on assistance to refugees and forced migrants, dated September 24, 1993 defines the notions of the “refugee”, “migrant”, “forced migrant” for the tasks of this Agreement.

The CIS Economic Court believes that a person may be declared a refugee if:

1)      such person is not a citizen of the State which has granted asylum to him/her (State of entrance);

2)      such person was forced to leave the place of his/her permanent residence located in the territory of another State (State of exit);

3)      the reason, by which such person had to leave the place of his/her permanent residence, was any committed violence or other forms of persecution or a real danger to become a victim of prosecution, not only against such person but also against his/her family members, because of his/her race or nationality, religion, language, political convictions, or belonging to a certain social group;

4)      there exists a connection between such committed violence or prosecution or real danger to become a victim of prosecution, and the armed and inter-national conflicts;

5)      the State of entrance and the State of exit are the parties to the Agreement;

6)      such person has not committed any crime against piece, humanity, or any other deliberate criminal offence.

The person may be declared a forced migrant if, subject to compliance with the criteria set forth in paragraphs 2 to 5 above, he/she is a citizen of the State which has granted asylum to him/her.

The CIS Economic Court believes that should the State of entrance and the State of exit be not the parties to the Agreement dated September 24, 1993, the issue of granting a refugee status to a person shall be settled on the basis of the norms set forth by the universal international treaties in this field, to which the CIS member-States are the parties, in particular, the Convention on the refugee status dated July 29, 1951, and the Protocol on the refugee status dated January 31, 1967.

Any persons may be declared the refugees and forced refugees by the competent national bodies of the CIS member-States in accordance with the legal norms applied in such States.

The Agreement dated September 24, 1993 neither uses nor defines the notion of a migrant. Such notion has never been defined as an independent term in any other sources of Law within the CIS. The CIS Economic Court has noted that according to the general meaning of the notion, a migrant means any person who carries out spatial travels, irrespective of reasons, duration, and space borders of such travels.

Construing of the Agreements governing mutual recognition of rights

to recovery of damages inflicted to the workers through permanent injuries,

occupational diseases, or damage to health

caused by fulfillment of their job responsibilities

Judgment No. 09/95/С-1/2-96 dated January 26, 1996 on construing the Agreement on mutual recognition of rights to recovery of damages inflicted to the workers through permanent injuries, occupational diseases, or other damage to health caused by fulfillment of their job responsibilities, dated September 9, 1994, was caused by delayed remittance and payment of monetary funds allocated for recovery of damages to the above categories of workers, by reason of suspension of any non-trade payments in the CIS member-States in consequence of introduction of their national currencies, insolvency of the tortfeasor enterprises, etc.

The CIS Economic Court has stressed that fulfillment of obligations under the Agreement dated September 9, 1994, including the first priority of remittance and payment of money allocated for recovery of damages, is dictated by the social policy of the States which are the parties to the Agreement. Under the first priority of remittance and payment of money allocated for recovery of damages shall be understood the first priority paramount (as compared to any other non-trade payments) fulfillment, by the Governments of the States which are the parties to the Agreement and by the concrete executives (tortfeasor enterprises, banking institutions and/or post-offices, other organizations irrespective their proprietary pattern), of their respective obligations to recover damages to the workers, in view of special social significance of such obligations.

In the opinion of the CIS Economic Court, proper fulfillment of such obligations to remit and pay monetary funds allocated for recovery of damage, as is provided for by Article 6 of the Agreement dated September 9, 1994, is possible only so long as regularity of such payments and appropriate periodicity of salary/wage payment (namely, once a month) is ensured without suspension thereof by whatever reason and irrespective of the sum. Signing a multilateral agreement is required in order to ensure cashflow directly from the tortfeasor enterprises to the recipient.