AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 12221/86
by Johannes Gerardus Maria ARNOLD
against the Netherlands
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 10 November 1989, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
G. BATLINER
J. CAMPINOS
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. L. LOUCAIDES
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 20 May 1986 by
Johannes Gerardus Maria ARNOLD against the Netherlands and registered
on 16 June 1986 under file No. 12221/86;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1929 and presently
residing in Schaesberg, the Netherlands.
The facts, as they have been submitted by the applicant, may
be summarised as follows:
From 1 September 1956 until 1 June 1961 the applicant worked
in the public service. During this period he paid pension
contributions for his retirement.
Under the General Act on Civil Servants' Pensions (Algemene
burgerlijke pensioenwet) a civil servant who has been dismissed before
the entering into force of this Act and who has no right to a
retirement pension because he has not been employed as a civil servant
for a sufficient length of time, will have a right to a retirement
pension after the entering into force of this Act if he has been in
the public service for at least five years.
By letter of 2 January 1983 the applicant requested the
General Civil Servants' Pension Fund (Algemeen Burgerlijk
Pensioenfonds) to decide that he would have a right to a retirement
pension, despite the fact that he had worked three months less than
the required five years in the public service.
By letter of 13 January 1984 the General Civil Servants'
Pension Fund informed the applicant that, if he were to ask for a
retirement pension when reaching the age of 65 years, he would receive
a negative decision, since he had not worked in the public service for
five years, as required by the General Act on Civil Servants'
Pensions. The Fund stated that this letter was for the purpose of
information and was not a decision.
By letter of 26 January 1984 the applicant appealed against
the letter of 13 January 1984 to the Supervisory Council (Raad van
toezicht) of the General Civil Servants' Pension Fund.
By letter of 27 June 1984 the Supervisory Council informed the
applicant of its decision to declare his appeal inadmissible since his
appeal was not directed against a decision but only against a letter
of information.
By letter of 5 July 1984 the applicant appealed against this
decision to the Civil Servants' Court (Ambtenarengerecht) of The
Hague. He submitted, inter alia, that the General Civil Servants'
Pension Fund had taken a conditional decision and that it was
important for him to know his rights to be able to choose the moment
of retirement.
In its decision of 17 October 1984 the Civil Servants' Court
declared the applicant's appeal inadmissible.
By letter of 29 October 1984 the applicant appealed against
this decision to the Central Council of Appeal (Centrale Raad van
Beroep). In its decision of 10 April 1986 the Council declared the
applicant's complaint inadmissible.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that under the Act on Pension- and
Savings Funds (Pensioen- en Spaarfondsenwet), which applies to
the private sector, a person who has taken part in a Pension Fund for
less than one year shall be refunded at least the contributions which
he has paid. Under the same Act, a person who has taken part in a
Pension Scheme for more than one year shall have a right to a
retirement pension on the basis of the contributions paid by himself
and his employer. However, under the General Act on Civil Servants'
Pensions a civil servant who has worked in the public service for less
than five years, will not receive anything. The applicant considers this an
arbitrary deprivation of his possessions. He invokes Article 14 of
the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
The applicant, born in 1929, complains of discriminatory
treatment in respect of his claim to a retirement pension flowing from
the contributions he paid to the Civil Servant's Pension Fund during
his years in the public service. He invokes Article 14 of the
Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Art. 14+P1-1).
However, the Commission notes that the applicant's alleged
right to a retirement pension would not become operable until he
reaches the age of 65. In this respect, it also notes that the
domestic administrative courts refused to consider the applicant's case
at this stage.
In the absence of a domestic decision concerning his alleged
pension right the Commission finds that the applicant cannot yet claim
to be a victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of
Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention. It follows that this
application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy