Children conceived after the death of the father using IVF technology are entitled to a survivor's pension (postmortem reproduction).
On 12.02.25, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 6-P on the case of verifying the constitutionality of parts 1 and 3 of Article 10 of the Federal Law "On Insurance Pensions" in connection with the complaint of citizen M. Yu. Shchanikova.
Case summary:
On 06.02.16, M. Yu. Shchanikova's husband was provided with cryopreservation and storage services for reproductive cells.
On 24.11.16, the husband died.
According to a previously concluded agreement, in the event of the death of one of the spouses, the right to dispose of the cryopreserved biomaterial was transferred to the other spouse, that is, M. Yu. Shchanikova.
On 21.11.17, M. Yu. Shchanikova entered into a contract for the provision of medical services, on the basis of which she successfully underwent the IVF procedure using the reproductive cells of her deceased spouse.
On September 15, 2018, she gave birth to twins (!).
On June 29, 2020, the Kolpinsky District Court of St. Petersburg established the fact of paternity of the applicant's deceased spouse in relation to her two children, after which the corresponding information about the father was entered into the records of birth certificates of the children.
On August 11, 2020, M. Yu. Shchanikova applied to the pension authority for the appointment of an insurance pension for the children in the event of the loss of a breadwinner, but she was refused with reference to the absence of the right to this pension.
Position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation:
1. Prima facie (at first glance), the insurance pension in the event of the loss of a breadwinner is intended for children born during the life of the parent.
At the same time, the dependency of the children of the deceased breadwinner is assumed and does not require proof if the child was born within 300 days from the date of death of the parent.
This approach follows from the physiological period of pregnancy and is based on the presumption of paternity of the spouse.
Scientific and technological progress has led to the development and implementation of assisted reproductive technologies in the field of medicine, the use of which is one of the ways to implement the right to health protection and medical care, promotes childbearing and the development of the institution of the family.
2. The death of the spouse is not an event as a result of which these children lose the opportunity to receive assistance (maintenance) from him, since due to objective reasons they did not receive it, but at the time of conception it could not be expected to be received.
The approach of the law enforcement agency not only means ignoring the fact that they have lost a potential source of livelihood that they could have counted on if their father had been alive, but also entails a decrease in the level of their social support compared to children born during the father's lifetime.
3. Parts 1 and 3 of Article 10 of the Federal Law "On Insurance Pensions" are recognized as not complying with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
4. The federal legislator must provide for such a child (such children) to be assigned either an insurance pension in the event of the loss of a breadwinner, or another measure of social support in the form of regular payments, so that they are comparable to such a pension.
On 12.02.25, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 6-P on the case of verifying the constitutionality of parts 1 and 3 of Article 10 of the Federal Law "On Insurance Pensions" in connection with the complaint of citizen M. Yu. Shchanikova.
Case summary:
On 06.02.16, M. Yu. Shchanikova's husband was provided with cryopreservation and storage services for reproductive cells.
On 24.11.16, the husband died.
According to a previously concluded agreement, in the event of the death of one of the spouses, the right to dispose of the cryopreserved biomaterial was transferred to the other spouse, that is, M. Yu. Shchanikova.
On 21.11.17, M. Yu. Shchanikova entered into a contract for the provision of medical services, on the basis of which she successfully underwent the IVF procedure using the reproductive cells of her deceased spouse.
On September 15, 2018, she gave birth to twins (!).
On June 29, 2020, the Kolpinsky District Court of St. Petersburg established the fact of paternity of the applicant's deceased spouse in relation to her two children, after which the corresponding information about the father was entered into the records of birth certificates of the children.
On August 11, 2020, M. Yu. Shchanikova applied to the pension authority for the appointment of an insurance pension for the children in the event of the loss of a breadwinner, but she was refused with reference to the absence of the right to this pension.
Position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation:
1. Prima facie (at first glance), the insurance pension in the event of the loss of a breadwinner is intended for children born during the life of the parent.
At the same time, the dependency of the children of the deceased breadwinner is assumed and does not require proof if the child was born within 300 days from the date of death of the parent.
This approach follows from the physiological period of pregnancy and is based on the presumption of paternity of the spouse.
Scientific and technological progress has led to the development and implementation of assisted reproductive technologies in the field of medicine, the use of which is one of the ways to implement the right to health protection and medical care, promotes childbearing and the development of the institution of the family.
2. The death of the spouse is not an event as a result of which these children lose the opportunity to receive assistance (maintenance) from him, since due to objective reasons they did not receive it, but at the time of conception it could not be expected to be received.
The approach of the law enforcement agency not only means ignoring the fact that they have lost a potential source of livelihood that they could have counted on if their father had been alive, but also entails a decrease in the level of their social support compared to children born during the father's lifetime.
3. Parts 1 and 3 of Article 10 of the Federal Law "On Insurance Pensions" are recognized as not complying with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
4. The federal legislator must provide for such a child (such children) to be assigned either an insurance pension in the event of the loss of a breadwinner, or another measure of social support in the form of regular payments, so that they are comparable to such a pension.
Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 6-П of 11.02.25.