Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 163
May 2013
Cichopek and Others v. Poland (dec.) - 15189/10, 10011/11, 10072/11 et al.
Decision 14.5.2013 [Section IV]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Loss of entitlement to favourable pension rights acquired as a result of employment in the State Security Service of the former communist regime in Poland: inadmissible
Facts – Pursuant to the provisions of a law enacted in 2009, the pension rights accumulated by former members of the Polish State Security Service between 1944 and 1990 during the communist regime were reduced. The applicants maintained that they had been required to bear an excessive burden on account of the abrupt, drastic and belated change to their personal circumstances brought about by a law which they considered to be punitive in its effect and a form of collective punishment for their previous employment. 1,628 such cases were filed with the Court.
Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The Court recalled at the outset that the reduction of a pension might constitute an interference with “possessions” which required justification. In the applicants’ case the interference – the loss of part of their pensions – had a lawful basis in the 2009 Act and pursued the legitimate aim of putting an end to pension advantages regarded as unwarranted or acquired unjustly, in order to ensure greater fairness in the pension system. For the Court, given the reason for which the pension advantages had been granted and the manner in which they had been acquired, they had to be regarded as manifestly unjust from the point of view of the values underlying the Convention. The reductions had not exceeded on average 25-30% and in most cases, notwithstanding the reductions, the applicants continued to receive more than the average pension in Poland. As regards the applicants’ argument that the State had waited too long before adopting the impugned measures, the Court noted that the political transition in the post-communist countries involved numerous complex, far-reaching and controversial reforms which necessarily had to be spread over time. It was thus for the national authorities to decide, having regard to the public interest at stake, when such measures should be introduced. Referring to the wide margin of appreciation afforded to those Contracting States engaged in the reform of their political, legal and economic system following their liberation from authoritarianism, the Court concluded that the very essence of the applicants’ rights had not been impaired.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
(See also Domalewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 34610/97, 15 June 1999, Information Note no. 7; Janković v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, 12 October 2000, Information Note no. 23; Schwengel v. Germany (dec.), no. 52442/99, 2 March 2000; Lessing and Reichelt v. Germany (dec.), nos. 49646/10 and 3365/11, 16 October 2012)
© 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