CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 27 mai 1991

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 15376/89                       by Werner BEGING                       against the Federal Republic of Germany             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 27 May 1991, the following members being present:                MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   E. BUSUTTIL                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   J.C. SOYER                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Sir   Basil HALL              Mrs.   J. LIDDY              MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                   B. MARXER                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission,           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 6 June 1989 by Werner BEGING against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 16 August 1989 under file No. 15376/89;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:           The applicant, born in 1925, is a German national and resident at Durach.           In the course of his professional activities the applicant was first employed by a private employer, and paid contributions under the general Employees' Old Age Insurance Scheme (gesetzliche Renten- versicherung).   In 1966 he entered the public service and worked at the Augsburg Tax Authority (Bezirksfinanzdirektion).   The applicant retired on 31 December 1988.           The payment of pensions to civil servants is regulated in the Civil Servants Pension Act (Beamtenversorgungsgesetz), which was reformed in July 1984.   In particular, S. 55 in the amended version provides that, if a person is entitled to both a pension under a general Old Age Insurance Scheme and a pension under the Civil Servants Pension Act, the latter pension will only be paid up to a maximum limit, which is calculated on the basis of the final increment step in the civil servant's grade upon which the calculation of his pension as civil servant is based.           On 30 September 1987 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundes- verfassungsgericht), in several leading cases, decided that S. 55 of the Civil Servants Pension Act could not be objected to under constitutional law.   Such a reduction was justified for fiscal reasons, namely the reduction of public expenses and of public debts.           On 9 March 1989 the Augsburg Tax Authority calculated the applicant's pension under the Civil Servants Pension Act, taking in particular his general old age pension into account (S. 55 of the Act).           On 17 March 1989 the Augsburg Tax Authority dismissed the applicant's administrative appeal (Widerspruch) against the application of S. 55 of the Civil Servants Pension Act.   A writing mistake was rectified on 12 April 1989.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains about S. 55 of the Civil Servants Pension Act as applied in his case.   He complains that his general old age pension is fully deducted from his pension under the Civil Servants Act, and that parliamentarians were allegedly exempted from the application of the above rule.   He does not invoke any provision of the Convention.     THE LAW           The applicant complains that his old age pension which he acquired under the general Old Age Insurance Scheme for Employees is counted towards his pension under the Civil Servants Pension Act.           The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)of the Convention which provides in its first paragraph:   "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law."           The Commission recalls that a right to a pension is not as such guaranteed by the Convention.   In certain circumstances, the payment of contributions to a pension fund may create a property right in a portion of such a fund and a modification of the pension rights under such a system could in principle raise an issue under the above Article.   However, even assuming that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) guarantees a person who has paid contributions to a special insurance system the right to derive benefit from the system, it cannot be interpreted as entitling that person to a pension of a particular amount (cf.   No. 5849/72, Müller v.   Austria, Comm.   Report 1.10.75, paras. 30 - 33, D.R. 3 p. 25).           The Commission has previously held that the co-ordination of two pensions in order to prevent cumulation of social benefits does not violate the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, even where one of the two pensions is reduced (No. 10671/83, Dec. 4.3.85, D.R. 42 p. 229).           The present applicant acquired in his professional life pension rights both under the general Old Age Pension Scheme for Employees and subsequently as a civil servant under the Civil Servants Pension Act.   The applicant's pension under the Civil Servants Pension Act was calculated in accordance with S. 55 of the above Act, taking, within certain limits, the amounts paid to him under the general Old Age Pension Scheme into account.           The Commission, assuming that the applicant's complaint about the calculation of his pension under the Civil Servants Pension Act raises an issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), considers that the co-ordination of the general old age pension and the pension under the Civil Servants Pension Act does not amount to deprivation of property contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).           In the circumstances of the present case there is no appearance of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), nor of any other provision of the Convention.   It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).             For these reasons, the Commission unanimously             DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.       Secretary to the Commission            President of the Commission              (H. C. KRÜGER)                         (C. A. NØRGAARD)