Information Note on the Court’s case-law 16
March 2000
Schwengel v. Germany (dec.) - 52442/99
Decision 2.3.2000 [Section IV]
Article 14
Discrimination
Difference in treatment of civil servants from the former GDR with regard to retirement pensions: inadmissible
From 1966 to 1990 the applicant held a managerial position in the Ministry of State Security of the former GDR. He retired in March 1990 and the GDR authorities granted him a retirement pension and disablement pension. His disablement pension was reduced for the first time in January 1991 and again in July 1991, pursuant to the Pension Transfers Act. In June 1994 the federal authorities set the amount of the proportion of salary to be used as a basis for calculating future pension, with a ceiling figure equal to 70% of the average salary in the former GDR. An objection by the applicant was dismissed, as was an appeal to the Social Court. The Social Court of Appeal stayed the proceedings pending delivery of the Constitutional Court’s ruling in similar cases before it, on an issue as to the constitutionality of the relevant sections of the Pension Transfers Act. With respect to the question affecting the applicant, the Constitutional Court held, in its authoritative judgment of 28 April 1999, that while the temporary reduction of pensions of the civil servants in the Ministry of State Security infringed the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, a general alignment of the pension rights of former civil servants in that ministry with the average salary of GDR citizens did not infringe the Basic Law because its purpose was to prevent financial favouritism arising from political considerations.
Inadmissible under Article 14 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and under Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time, impartial tribunal and fair hearing)
Article 14 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was applicable to the case. The applicant’s pension had been reduced after German reunification pursuant to statutory provisions prompted by the fact that his salary and pension as a former civil servant in the Ministry of State Security greatly exceeded the average pension and salary in the former GDR for political reasons. The alignment of pensions of former civil servants and the reasons for it were upheld by the Constitutional Court. The applicant would lose only the part of his pension which corresponded to a financial privilege. The German legislature was thereby pursuing the objective of social justice, which was a legitimate aim under Article 14. Moreover, the Constitutional Court’s judgment guaranteed that the pension of former civil servants would not be less than the average pension in the former GDR, a fact which demonstrated the proportionality of the means used to the aim pursued: manifestly ill-founded.
© 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