Information Note on the Court’s case-law 5
April 1999
Bellet v. France (dec.) - 40906/98, 40832/98 and 40833/98
Decision 27.4.1999 [Section III]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Possessions
French civil servants having been on secondment in Monaco unable to draw concurrent French and Monacan pensions: inadmissible
[This summary also covers the following decisions of 27 April 1999: Huertas v. France (no. 40833/98) and Vialatte v. France (no. 40906/98).]
The three applicants were French civil servants who had been seconded to posts in the Principality of Monaco. As French civil servants they paid contributions to a French civil pension scheme. However, they were also required by Monacan law to pay contributions while on secondment there into a complementary pension scheme. They therefore received on retiring a pension from Monaco as well as their French retirement pension (with the exception of the second applicant, whose French pension was reduced by the amount he received under the Monacan scheme until such time as he waived his right to the latter). The French authorities advised the applicants that under French law they were not entitled to receive both pensions.
Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The Commission had consistently expressed the view that although the Convention did not guarantee a right to a pension as such, contributions made under a compulsory retirement scheme could in certain cases create a right of property in part of the fund. However, for such a right to accrue the applicant had to have satisfied the conditions laid down by domestic law. In the present case, the statute had clearly provided that civil servants on secondment overseas could not – except in certain circumstances which did not apply to the applicants – participate in a retirement scheme for the post for which they had been seconded or in such capacity acquire any rights to a pension, irrespective of the positions they had held during their career. Furthermore, although the French authorities had for a number of years tolerated retired civil servants receiving both pensions, that had not created a right protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: manifestly ill-founded.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy