Information Note on the Court’s case-law 197
June 2016
Philippou v. Cyprus - 71148/10
Judgment 14.6.2016 [Section III]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Automatic forfeiture of applicant’s civil-service pension following disciplinary proceedings resulting in his dismissal: no violation
Facts – In 2005 the applicant, a civil servant, was convicted of, inter alia, dishonesty, obtaining money by false pretences and forging cheques, and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Following subsequent disciplinary proceedings, he was dismissed, which automatically entailed the forfeiture of his civil-service pension.
In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 through the forfeiture of his pension.
Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The forfeiture of the applicant’s retirement benefits amounted to a lawful interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
As to whether this interference had been proportionate, the Court reiterated that it did not consider it inherently unreasonable for provision to be made for a reduction in the amount of a pension or even total forfeiture in suitable cases. In general*, the deprivation of the entirety of a pension was likely to breach Article 1 of Protocol No. 1** and, conversely, the imposition of a reduction which the Court considered to be reasonable and commensurate would not***. Whether or not the right balance had been struck would depend on the circumstances and particular factors of a given case.
As to the applicant’s case, the Court first noted that, in the separate disciplinary proceedings brought against him following his criminal conviction, the applicant’s personal position had been considered in depth before the authorities decided on the penalty to be imposed. Moreover, the forfeiture decision was reviewed by the Supreme Court at two levels of jurisdiction. He had thus benefited from extensive procedural guarantees.
Secondly, the impugned decision did not leave the applicant without any means of subsistence. The forfeiture only concerned his public-service retirement benefits. He remained eligible to receive, and did receive from 2012, a social-security pension from the Social Insurance Fund to which he and his employer had contributed.
Thirdly, the applicant’s wife received a widow’s pension, which ensured that the family immediately received a pension based on the assumption that he had died rather than that he had been dismissed.
Weighing the seriousness of the offences committed by the applicant against the effect of the disciplinary measures and taking all the above factors into consideration, the Court found that the applicant did not have to bear an individual and excessive burden.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
* See, for example, Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), 13341/14, 1 September 2015; and Stefanetti and Others v. Italy, 21838/10 et al., 15 April 2014, Information Note 173.
** See, for example, Apostolakis v. Greece, 39574/07, 22 October 2009, Information Note 123.
*** See, for example, Da Silva Carvalho Rico, cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, 17972/07, 14 February 2012, Information Note 149; and Poulain v. France (dec.), 52273/08, 8 February 2011.
© 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