Legal issue: the constitutionality of the contested provision in the light of the fact that it precludes non-working pensioners, who live in the Far North and the territories equated to it, from realizing their right to compensation of expenses incurred by moving to a new place of residence.

 

Ratio decidendi: the Court found uncertainty in the legislation and judicial practice as to which budget – the federal one or those of respective regions – should bear costs of financing this kind of social benefit. This uncertainty does not enable citizens to avail themselves of this form of social protection, thus violating their constitutional rights. Having recognized the contested provision as not conformant to the Constitution, the Court obligated the legislator to make necessary amendments into law; until then, the compensation of such relocation costs should be effectuated at the expense of the federal budget.