SALA v. POLAND and 5 other applications

Published on 15 April 2024

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 29761/22
Janina Józefa SALA against Poland
and 5 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 26 March 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The present applications concern reduction of the applicants’ pensions. They raise issues similar to Cichopek and Others v. Poland ((dec.), nos. 15189/10 and 1,627 others, 14 May 2013), Bieliński v. Poland (no. 48762/19, 21 July 2022) and Raboszuk v. Poland (no. 231/22 and 2 other applications, recently communicated).

In 2017, following the entry into force of the amendments of the Law of 18 February 1994 on old-age pensions of functionaries of the police, the Internal Security Agency, the Intelligence Agency, the Military Counter‑Intelligence Service, the Military Intelligence Service, the Central Anti‑Corruption Bureau, the Border Guard, the Government Protection Bureau, the State Fire Service, the Prison Service and their families (ustawa o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym funkcjonariuszy Policji, Agencji Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego, Agencji Wywiadu, Służby Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego, Służby Wywiadu Wojskowego, Centralnego Biura Antykorupcyjnego, Straży Granicznej, Biura Ochrony Rządu, Państwowej Straży Pożarnej i Służby Więziennej oraz ich rodzin – “the 1994 Act”), administrative decisions were issued recalculating the applicants’ pensions. The decisions were immediately enforceable. Upon appeal, the domestic courts did not accept the administrative decisions in their entirety, however, they partly decreased the applicants’ social benefits in relation to their original pension holding that, during certain periods of their service, they had served a totalitarian regime.

The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the decrease of their pension constitutes a disproportionate interference with their acquired rights which, in turn, amounts to a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the decrease of the applicants’ pensions amount to an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

If so, was the interference in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law? Did it put an excessive individual burden on the applicants?

APPENDIX