AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 15376/89
by Werner BEGING
against the Federal Republic of Germany
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 27 May 1991, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Sir Basil HALL
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
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 6 June 1989 by
Werner BEGING against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered
on 16 August 1989 under file No. 15376/89;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the
applicant, may be summarised as follows:
The applicant, born in 1925, is a German national and resident
at Durach.
In the course of his professional activities the applicant
was first employed by a private employer, and paid contributions under
the general Employees' Old Age Insurance Scheme (gesetzliche Renten-
versicherung). In 1966 he entered the public service and worked at
the Augsburg Tax Authority (Bezirksfinanzdirektion). The applicant
retired on 31 December 1988.
The payment of pensions to civil servants is regulated in the
Civil Servants Pension Act (Beamtenversorgungsgesetz), which was
reformed in July 1984. In particular, S. 55 in the amended version
provides that, if a person is entitled to both a pension under a
general Old Age Insurance Scheme and a pension under the Civil
Servants Pension Act, the latter pension will only be paid up to a
maximum limit, which is calculated on the basis of the final increment
step in the civil servant's grade upon which the calculation of his
pension as civil servant is based.
On 30 September 1987 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundes-
verfassungsgericht), in several leading cases, decided that S. 55 of
the Civil Servants Pension Act could not be objected to under
constitutional law. Such a reduction was justified for fiscal reasons,
namely the reduction of public expenses and of public debts.
On 9 March 1989 the Augsburg Tax Authority calculated the
applicant's pension under the Civil Servants Pension Act, taking in
particular his general old age pension into account (S. 55 of the Act).
On 17 March 1989 the Augsburg Tax Authority dismissed the
applicant's administrative appeal (Widerspruch) against the
application of S. 55 of the Civil Servants Pension Act. A writing
mistake was rectified on 12 April 1989.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains about S. 55 of the Civil Servants
Pension Act as applied in his case. He complains that his general old
age pension is fully deducted from his pension under the Civil
Servants Act, and that parliamentarians were allegedly exempted from
the application of the above rule. He does not invoke any provision of
the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that his old age pension which he
acquired under the general Old Age Insurance Scheme for Employees is
counted towards his pension under the Civil Servants Pension Act.
The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)of the Convention which provides in its first paragraph:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to
the conditions provided for by law and by the general
principles of international law."
The Commission recalls that a right to a pension is not as
such guaranteed by the Convention. In certain circumstances, the
payment of contributions to a pension fund may create a property right
in a portion of such a fund and a modification of the pension rights
under such a system could in principle raise an issue under the above
Article. However, even assuming that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-1) guarantees a person who has paid contributions to a special
insurance system the right to derive benefit from the system, it
cannot be interpreted as entitling that person to a pension of a
particular amount (cf. No. 5849/72, Müller v. Austria, Comm. Report
1.10.75, paras. 30 - 33, D.R. 3 p. 25).
The Commission has previously held that the co-ordination of
two pensions in order to prevent cumulation of social benefits does
not violate the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, even where
one of the two pensions is reduced (No. 10671/83, Dec. 4.3.85,
D.R. 42 p. 229).
The present applicant acquired in his professional life
pension rights both under the general Old Age Pension Scheme for
Employees and subsequently as a civil servant under the Civil Servants
Pension Act. The applicant's pension under the Civil Servants Pension
Act was calculated in accordance with S. 55 of the above Act,
taking, within certain limits, the amounts paid to him under the
general Old Age Pension Scheme into account.
The Commission, assuming that the applicant's complaint about
the calculation of his pension under the Civil Servants Pension Act
raises an issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), considers that the
co-ordination of the general old age pension and the pension under the
Civil Servants Pension Act does not amount to deprivation of property
contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
In the circumstances of the present case there is no
appearance of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), nor
of any other provision of the Convention. It follows that the
application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy