Published on 22 May 2023
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 38384/19
Victoria HEDEȘ
against Romania
lodged on 4 July 2019
communicated on 5 May 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application pertains to a review of the applicant’s old-age pension rights eight years after they have been assessed and an accompanying order for retrospective reimbursement of funds erroneously paid to her.
Upon reaching the retirement age in 2009, the applicant started receiving a monthly pension of 1,458 Romanian Lei (RON) (equating to approximately 320 Euro (EUR)). However, in 2017, the local pension authority notified her of an assessment error in her pension rights resulting from the incorrect application of pension legislation by the authority. Specifically, it was determined that a period in which she had worked in a collective farm (“CAP”) needed to be excluded from the assessment as she had not been an ordinary member of the farm but an accountant.
As a result, her monthly pension was to be reduced by RON 410 (equivalent to approximately EUR 90), and she was mandated to reimburse the State the amount of RON 8,939 (equating to approximately EUR 2,000) that she had mistakenly received over the past three years.
The applicant challenged the above decision and was successful at first instance. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the first instance court’s judgment, ruling in favour of the pension authority. In so doing, the court did not attribute any blame to the applicant concerning the error made by the pension authority during the assessment of her pension rights.
The applicant alleges that the reassessment of her pension rights eight years later and the demand for retrospective reimbursement of a significant sum of money infringed her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension rights and the demand for the retrospective repayment of a significant sum of money amount to a deprivation of her possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was the interference justified under this provision (Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, 13 December 2016; and Čakarević v. Croatia, no. 48921/13, 26 April 2018)?