1. The subject of the dispute is the establishment of the fact of the applicant’s residence as the wife of a serviceman in a military garrison abroad of the former USSR in order to include this period in the insurance period for the purpose of pension assignment.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decisions of the previous courts, which closed the proceedings in the case, based on the fact that cases on the establishment of facts of legal significance fall under the jurisdiction of civil courts if the emergence, modification, or termination of subjective rights of citizens depends on these facts. The court emphasized that current legislation does not provide for any other judicial procedure for confirming such facts, except in the order of civil proceedings. The court also took into account that the refusal of the Pension Fund to assign a pension due to non-confirmation of the insurance period is not identical to the refusal to establish the very fact of residence in a military garrison. The court indicated that the courts should distinguish between cases where there is a dispute about the law, which must be resolved in the claim proceedings, and cases where it is necessary to establish a legal fact for the realization of the right to a pension. The court noted that it deviates from the previous conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in similar cases, which indicated the possibility of appealing decisions on the establishment of legal facts in an extrajudicial procedure to administrative courts.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of appeal and sent the case for continued consideration to the court of first instance.
