Information Note on the Court’s case-law 211
October 2017
Krajnc v. Slovenia - 38775/14
Judgment 31.10.2017 [Section IV]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Disability allowance reduced following reassessment finding further reduction in capacity to work:violation
Facts – The applicant, who had been certified as having a work-related disability, was in receipt of an allowance. Some years later he sustained a shoulder injury and a reassessment of his disability found that his capacity to work had been further reduced. In the meantime, the relevant legislation had been reformed and due to the changes in the law his disability allowance was reduced following the reassessment to less than half of the amount he had previously been receiving. The applicant’s appeals against this decision were unsuccessful.
Before the European Court, the applicant complained that the reduction of the benefit in respect of his disability had violated his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: If a contracting State had legislation in force providing for the payment as of right of a welfare benefit, that legislation had to be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for persons satisfying its requirements. Where the amount of a benefit was reduced or discontinued, that could constitute interference with possessions requiring justification. Any interference had to be reasonably proportionate to the aim sought to be realised. The requisite fair balance would not be struck where the person concerned bore an individual or excessive burden.
The new legislation had stipulated that those who had acquired rights under the previous system would continue to enjoy them after it came into force. That had reinforced the applicant’s legitimate expectation of continuing to receive an allowance following the legislative reform. It was only when his disability was found to have deteriorated – a fact which he could have hardly predicted and prepared for – that he became affected by the new legislation. The differential treatment of two groups of unemployed disabled workers – those whose disabilities remained unchanged and those whose disabilities had deteriorated – which resulted in the applicant being suddenly divested of his disability benefit while being at the time same time further limited in working opportunities, carried great weight in the assessment of the proportionality issue. It was significant that the applicant had been unemployed and evidently had difficulties pursuing gainful employment due to his disability. That vulnerability was precisely what the disability benefit in question was meant to address. The decrease in the applicant’s disability benefit, which seriously affected his means of subsistence, was not mitigated by any transitional measure allowing him to adapt to the new situation.
The reform in legislation concerning pension and disability insurance served a legitimate purpose and had resulted in the increased employment of disabled workers. However, notwithstanding the State’s wide margin of appreciation in the field, the applicant had had to bear an excessive individual burden, which upset the fair balance that had to be struck between the protection of property and the requirements of general interest.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: 10,000 EUR in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
(See also Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], 53080/13, 13 December 2016, Information Note 202)
© 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