CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 14 mai 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9975F4A9 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s197FB613 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD2CEF84A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0F961A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .s677DA8A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1B0D0B53 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s13F94BE1 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2ED81498 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC8702D41 { width:154.61pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s56836E40 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD6687E5B { width:120.75pt; display:inline-block } .s7D5A38C2 { width:69.11pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sE85CFE3F { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#d9d9d9 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sB0B883A { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#d9d9d9 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s50D91445 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#d9d9d9 } .sFAEB9354 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#d9d9d9 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s42A86553 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#d9d9d9 } .sF2EF8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s5C49F163 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#d9d9d9 } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sE776766E { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#d9d9d9 } .s3641ACBF { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s96C3F11F { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#d9d9d9 } .s2C1E856E { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 15189/10 Adam CICHOPEK against Poland and 1,627 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on   14   May 2013 as a Chamber composed of:   Ineta Ziemele, President,   Päivi Hirvelä,   George Nicolaou,   Ledi Bianku,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Faris Vehabović, judges, and Francoişe Elens-Passos, Section Registrar, Having regard to the applications listed on the appendix, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of all the applicants is set out in the appendix. A.     Background 2.     The so-called “public security authorities” (“aparat bezpieczeństwa publicznego ” or “ organy bezpieczeństwa publicznego ), i.e. a Polish communist secret police apparatus, operated in 1944-1990. The apparatus, which was reshaped several times, consisted of different services and institutions, comprising the political police and special armed forces. It was patterned on the NKVD ( Народный комиссариат внутренних дел/Narodnyy Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del , i.e. the Soviet People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs) and the KGB ( Комитет государственной безопасности/Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti, i.e. the Committee for State Security) and established (under the supervision of the NKVD) in 1944 with a view to securing Communist rule and combating, suppressing and eliminating groups of political opposition, including the post-war underground resistance against Communism and the Polish Church. In the 1950s these organs were in charge of prisons and labour camps; at that time, they were also competent to conduct criminal investigations under the rules of criminal procedure (see Domalewski v.   Poland (dec.), no.   4610/97, ECHR 1999-V). From 1956 onwards, when the level and nature of repression changed, their tasks involved in the protection of the communist system included, among other things, the control and infiltration of Polish society secured by its own members and through a system of paid or unpaid informers and secret collaborators, denunciation, monitoring of persons in, or cooperating with, the opposition, political opponents, priests and other persons suspected of being in any way associated with anti-communist ideas or critical of the communist party’s programme, its role and members 3.     The general information concerning the public security service published on the official website of the Institute of the National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation ( Instytut Pamięci Narodowej – Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu – “the IPN” ) [1] reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “Since 1944 until 1990 the functionaries of the security services constituted “the armed arm of the communist party”. The main goal of the services was to protect the communists from society and to eliminate opposition. ... First, the Security Services operated within the Ministry of Public Security which was created in summer 1944. The executive staff of the Ministry had been trained in NKVD school in Kuibyshev (USSR). Apart from the central office, the ‘soviet advisers’ were sent to all newly-created regional Offices of Public Security throughout Poland. The official activity of the Ministry of Public Security started on 1 January 1945 and its wide range of power was not limited by law. The Ministry focused on achieving goals set by the Polish Workers’ Party (PPR) [ Polska Partia Robotnicza ] and later the Polish United Workers’ Party (PZPR) [ Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza ]. At the peak of its expansion in 1953 there were 33,000 functionaries working within the ministry structures. Additionally, a network of 73,000 informers (in the mid 1950s) collaborated with the ministry. The informers were recruited by means of brutal intimidation or promises of financial gain. Nevertheless, some of the informers, especially members of the communist party, volunteered for the work. Offices of Public Security and their informants kept under surveillance the political parties, national and local public administration, social and religious organisations, factory workers and, in general, social attitudes. One third of adult Poles were registered in the ministry’s files because they constituted ‘a dubious element’. In 1954 the Ministry of Public Security was replaced by the Ministry of Interior Affairs (MSW) and the Committee of Public Security Affairs. In 1956 the Committee was disbanded and its competences and staff transferred to the Ministry of [the] Interior .... The Security Service (SB) operated in Poland between 1956 and 1990. The fall of the communist system in Poland in 1989 brought an end to the existence of this political police and organ of terror, which was hostile to Polish society throughout its existence. ...” 4.     The Security Service operated through the following main structures: Department I (for intelligence), Department II (for counter-intelligence); Department III (for anti-State activities against the country in the sphere of ideology, culture and education; the tasks involved, inter alia , infiltration of artistic, intellectual, academic, journalist and similar circles, finding secret collaborators within those groups as well as monitoring of targeted persons), Department IV (church and religious associations; the tasks involved infiltration of targeted groups, monitoring etc.), Department V (for protection of industry and anti-State activities in industry and within workers unions and circles), the Office of Foreign Passports ( Biuro Paszportów ), the so-called Bureau "A" (cipher); Bureau "B" (observation) and Bureau "W" (oversight of correspondence), Bureau “T” (operational techniques). The subordinate units at local level had departments organised in the same way. In 1983-1990 they were organised in regional ( wojewódzkie ) and district ( rejonowe ) offices for internal affairs ( urzędy spraw wewnętrznych ). 5.     Following the fall of Communism in Poland, the Security Service was dissolved by virtue of the law of 6 Apri1 1990 on the Office for State Protection ( ustawa o Urzędzie Ochrony Państwa ) (“the 1990 Act”), a new body responsible for intelligence and counter-intelligence. At that time the Security Service comprised around 30,000 persons, including some 24,000   functionaries. They could be re-employed by the Office for State Protection on condition that they successfully passed a vetting procedure, which some 14,000 officers underwent. 10,439 persons were eventually found suitable for re-employment and 3,595 were vetted negatively and not retained (see also paragraphs 57-62 below). 6.     On 23 January 2009 Parliament enacted the Act on amendments to the law on old-age pensions of professional soldiers and their families and to the law 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 zmianie ustawy o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym żołnierzy zawodowych oraz ich rodzin oraz ustawy 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 2009 Act”). The 2009 Act, which entered into force on 16 March 2009, introduced new rules for the calculation of the pensions of former functionaries of the State security service into 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”). In particular, one of the coefficients relevant for the calculation of pensions of former functionaries was lowered from 2.6% to 0.70% for each year of service with the former communist State security authorities in the period from 1944 to 1990 (see also paragraphs 68-72 below). For the purposes of the 2009 Act, the State security authorities are those listed in the law of 18 October 2006 on the disclosure of information of documents of the State security authorities in the years 1944-1990 and the content of such documents ( ustawa o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach organów bezpieczeństwa państwa z lat 1944-1990 oraz treści tych dokumentów – “the 2006 Act” (see also paragraphs 66-67 below). B.     The circumstances of the cases 7.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Cichopek v. Poland (no. 15189/10) 8.     The applicant, Mr Adam Cichopek, is a Polish national who was born in 1943. He lives in Chrzanów. 9.     From 1969 to 1990 the applicant served in the Security Service, holding various posts. Starting as an operational inspector in 1969, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant of the District Office for Internal Affairs ( Rejonowy Urząd Spraw Wewnętrznych ) responsible for the Security Service. In 1990, on his dismissal from service, he held the rank of major. 10.     On 4 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration ( Dyrektor Zakładu Emerytalno-Rentowego Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji) , pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN (see also paragraphs 70-72 below), issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from 3,038.38 Polish zlotys (PLN) to PLN   1,652.60 monthly. According to the applicant, after taxation, the net amount of his current pension was PLN 1,380.87. 11.     The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division ( Sąd Okręgowy – Wydział Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ). He sought to have his previous pension restored, submitting that the impugned decision was based on legal provisions which were incompatible with Articles 2, 10, 31 § 3 and 31 of the Constitution (see also paragraphs 77-84 below) and that it had been contrary to international law. 12.     On 23 April 2012 the Regional Court dismissed his appeal as unfounded. Relying on the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010, whereby a challenge to the constitutionality of the 2009 Act had meanwhile been examined and rejected (see also paragraphs 85-106 below), the court held that the relevant provisions of the 2009 Act had been applied correctly in the applicant’s case. 13.     The applicant lodged an appeal on 1 June 2012. According to the most recent information supplied by the applicant on 31 December 2012, the proceedings were still pending before the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( Sąd   Apelacyjny ) and no hearing date had yet been set. 2.     Romański and Others v. Poland (no. 24434/10) 14.     The application was lodged by eleven Polish nationals: Mr Janusz Romański (“the first applicant”) was born in 1937, Mr Andrzej Gomuliński (“the second applicant”) was born in 1943, Ms Barbara Gomulińska (“the third applicant”) was born in 1944, Ms Janina Męcik (“the fourth applicant”) was born in 1942, Ms Danuta Makuch (“the fifth applicant”) was born in 1945, Mr Lech Męcik (“the sixth applicant”) was born in 1938, Ms Wanda Wacławik (“the seventh applicant”) was born in 1942, Ms   Stanisława Fortuna (“the eighth applicant”) was born in 1931, Ms   Elżbieta Duda (“the ninth applicant”) was born in 1941, Ms Wiesława Giera (“the tenth applicant”) was born in 1936 and Ms Wiesława Przewrocka (“the eleventh applicant”) was born in 1946. The applicants, except for the fourth applicant who lives in Mysiadło, live in Warsaw. In the proceedings before the Court they were represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 15.     Except for the first applicant who was positively vetted in 1990, the remaining applicants were not subjected to the vetting procedure (see also paragraph 5 above and paragraphs 57-62 below). 16.     On 16 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the first applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN   2,365.95 (gross) to PLN 1,676.76 monthly. After taxation, the net amount of his current pension was PLN 1,399.85. 17.     Similar decisions reducing their pensions were issued in respect of the remaining applicants: – on 22 October 2009 the second applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 3,273. 85 (gross) to PLN 1,411.68 (gross). After taxation, the net amount of his current pension was PLN 1,186.63; – on 29 October 2009 the third applicant’s retirement pension was reduced to PLN   1,370.97 (gross)/PLN 1,308,97 (net); the applicant failed to indicate the previous amount. However, at the same time, payment of this benefit was suspended because she had also the right to a disability pension, which was more advantageous. The amount of her current disability pension was PLN 1,563.70; – on 9 November 2009 the fourth applicant’s retirement pension was reduced to PLN   1,500.88 (gross); the applicant failed to indicate the previous amount. However, at the same time, payment of this benefit was suspended because she had also the right to a disability pension, which was more advantageous. The amount of her current disability pension was PLN   1,512.99 (gross); – on 16 October 2009 the fifth applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN   1,063.69 (gross)/PLN 904.93 (net); the applicant failed to indicate the previous amount; – on 9 November 2009 the sixth applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 3,895.61(gross) to PLN 2,892.73 (gross); – on 3 November 2009 the seventh applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 2,478.47 (net) to PLN 1,766.51 (gross)/PLN 1,472.52 (net); – on 13 October 2009 the eight applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN   1,429.74 (gross); the applicant failed to indicate the previous amount; – on 27 October 2009 the ninth applicant’s retirement pension was reduced from PLN 2,689.44 to PLN 1,243.87 but, at the same time, payment of this benefit was suspended because she had also the right to a disability pension, which was more advantageous. The amount of her current disability pension was PLN 1,344.72; – on 19 October 2009 the tenth applicant’s old-age pension was reduced from PLN 2,407.22 to PLN 1,687.11; – on 2 December 2009 the eleventh applicant’s old-age pension was reduced from PLN 1,671.45 to PLN 1,002.79. 18.     The applicants on various dates appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, submitting in essence that the social security authority had misinterpreted the provisions of the 2009 Act and that the impugned decisions were unlawful and contrary to the Constitution and international treaties ratified by Poland. In particular, they relied on Articles 2, 8, 10 30 and 32 of the Constitution, asserting that the legislature had overstepped its competence because it had imposed collective punishment on them, that it had failed to respect the principle of protection of acquired rights and that they were discriminated against on account of their service in the State security authorities. They also invoked Articles 6, 7, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 19.     The applicants have not informed the Court about the outcome of the appeal proceedings, except for the second applicant who produced a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision of 23 November 2012, refusing to entertain his cassation appeal against the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal. It emerges from that decision that the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the pension decision on 16 May 2011 and that his appeal against that judgment was dismissed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 12 January 2012. 3.     Giętkowska v. Poland (no. 34213/12) 20.     The applicant, Ms Ewa Giętkowska, is a Polish national born in 1954 and living in Serock. In the proceedings before the Court she was represented by Mr S.   Pikulski, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 21.     From 16 July 1984 to 1 October 1989 the applicant was employed in the Office of Foreign Passports of the Warsaw District Headquarters of the Civic Militia. From 2 October 1989 to 15 July 2003 she was a policewoman in the Warsaw-Ochota District Police Headquarters and then in the Warsaw-City District Police Headquarters. She worked in the Investigation Department and the Homicide Department. The applicant retired on 15 July 2003. 22.     On 19 October 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from PLN   3,010 to PLN 2,462.95 monthly. That meant that instead of receiving as before 78.84% of her pension’s basis of assessment, she received 52.80% of that amount. 23.     On 12 November 2009 the applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division. The court dismissed her appeal on 7 January 2011. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. On 7 July 2011 the Warsaw Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. 24.     On 10 October 2011 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal ( skarga kasacyjna ). The Court of Appeal rejected it as inadmissible on 17 October 2011. The applicant’s further interlocutory appeal ( zażalenie ) against that decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 3 February 2012. 4.     Poniecki v. Poland (no. 57285/12) 25.     The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1954 and living in Łódź. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Mr   T.   Srogosz, a lawyer practising in Częstochowa. 26.     From 16 April 1976 to 30 May 1999 the applicant was a functionary of the Civic Militia and, after having been positively vetted in 1990, of the Police ( Policja ). He began his career from a clerk in the field of operational techniques ( referent techniki operacyjnej ) in the Office of Foreign Passports and, until 31 July 1990, he held various posts in units of Bureau “B” and Bureau “T” of the Security Service (see also paragraph 4 above). In June ‑ September 1982 the applicant participated in a special course for the Security Service. In 1983-1986 he followed extramural studies at the Legionowo Officer Academy of the Ministry of the Interior ( Wyższa Szkoła Oficerska Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych ), an academy which trained officers for the Security Service. 27.     On 1 June 1999 the applicant retired and was granted the right to an old-age pension corresponding to 63.19% of its basis of assessment. 28.     On 16 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN   3,318.51 gross to PLN 2,549.03 gross monthly. 29.     In a subsequent decision, issued on 17 December 2009, the applicant’s pension was assessed at PLN 2,549.03 gross and PLN 2,104.62 net. 30.     The applicant appealed against both decisions to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division. He argued, among other things, that they were in breach of the constitutional principles of non ‑ discrimination, protection of acquired rights and presumption of innocence, and also incompatible with Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The court, noting that from 8 January 1978 to 31 July 1990 the applicant had been a functionary of the Security Service, which justified the application of the 2009 Act, and having regard to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below), rejected the appeal on 15   July 2011. The judgment, following the applicant’s further appeal, was upheld by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 5 April 2012. The court stressed that the amount of the applicant’s benefit – even after the reduction – remained higher that the average old-age pension under the general social security scheme. 5.     Przybylski v. Poland (no. 32251/10) 31.     The applicant is a Polish national born in 1948 and living in Poznań. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Mr P. Sowisło, a lawyer practising in Poznań. 32.     The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 16   December 1973 to 31 March 1990. On the latter date he retired. 33.     On 27 October 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN   2,163.42 to PLN 1,537.78 monthly. 34.     The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, arguing that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional. In particular, he alleged a breach of the principles of the protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers, proportionality, equality before the law and non-discrimination. On 18 April 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010, dismissed the appeal. The applicant appealed. On 22 February 2012 the Warsaw Court of Appeal heard the appeal and partly amended the first-instance judgment, holding that in respect of the period from 1   October 1975 to 1 August 1978, during which the applicant had studied at the Legionowo Officer Academy of the Ministry of the Interior, the relevant coefficient for the pension’s basis of assessment should be 2.6%, not 0.7%. The applicant has not informed the Court of the current, increased amount of his old-age pension. 6.     Weber v. Poland (no. 12248/11) 35.     The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1949 and living in Warsaw. In the proceedings before the Court the applicant was represented by Mr D. Sucholewski, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 36.     The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 6   December 1976 to 31 July 1990. On 16 May 1990 the Vetting Commission for Central Personnel gave a positive opinion on the applicant’s suitability for re-employment in the new state security institutions (see also paragraph 5 above and paragraphs 57-62 below). She continued service in the Office for State Protection until 30   June 1998, when she retired. 37.     On 16 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from PLN   2,267.72 to PLN 1,787.64 monthly. 38.     On 24 November 2009 the applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, maintaining that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional. In particular, she alleged a breach of the principles of the protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers, proportionality, equality before the law and non-discrimination. She has not informed the Court of the outcome of the proceedings. 7.     Czajka v. Poland (no. 58207/11) 39.     The applicant is a Polish national born in 1934 and living in Suwałki. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Ms   B.   Świątkiewicz, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 40.     The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 1 May 1960 to an unspecified date in 1990. He held various posts, beginning his career as an operational inspector. On the termination of service he held the rank of lieutenant colonel. The applicant was granted the right to a disability pension on 30 April 1990. He did not undergo the vetting procedure. 41.     On 26 October 2009 and 17 December 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN 4,365.30 to PLN 2,183.96 gross (1,982.50   net) monthly. 42.     The applicant appealed against both decisions to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, arguing that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional. In particular, he alleged a breach of the principles of the protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers, proportionality, equality before the law, non-discrimination and the right to social security. He submitted that the 2009 Act imposed collective punishment on former functionaries of the Security Service and that they were refused the right to a hearing and could not defend themselves against charges of a criminal nature laid against them in the preamble to that Act. The applicant also invoked Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention. On 30 May 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below) dismissed the appeal. The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Court of Appeal. He has not informed the Court of the outcome of the proceedings. 8.     Kosiorek v. Poland (no. 44980/12) 43.     The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1950 and living in Rogoźnik. In the proceedings before the Court she was represented by Ms   A.   K. Wojcieszuk-Kwiatkowska, a lawyer practising in Katowice. 44.     The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 1   January 1970 to 31   May 1987. She held various posts, starting her career as a typist in the Investigation Department of the Katowice Security Service. On the termination of her service, she was a senior clerk in the field of operational techniques. She retired on 23 June 1987. 45.     On 4 November 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from 52% to 31.15% of the pension’s basis of assessment. This corresponded to PLN   862,70 monthly. 46.     The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, maintaining that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional and in breach of the Convention. On 25 May 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below), dismissed the appeal. The applicant’s appeal against the judgment was heard, and rejected, by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 15 March 2012. 9.     Aleksiuk v. Poland (no. 22543/12) 47.     The applicant is a Polish national born in 1946 and living in Hajnówka. In the proceedings before the Court he was represented by Ms   Z.   Daniszewska-Dek, a lawyer practising in Białystok. 48.     The applicant was a functionary of the Security Service from 1   November 1970 to 1 September 1975 and from 1 August 1978 to 1   January 1990. 49.     On 27 October 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension, whereby his benefit was reduced from PLN   2,728.87 to PLN 1,509.28 monthly. 50.     The applicant appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, maintaining that the provisions of the 2009 Act on which the impugned decision was based were unconstitutional, that that Act of itself was a form of political repression and revenge based on collective responsibility and that it was in breach of the Convention. He alleged, in particular, a violation of the constitutional principles of the protection of acquired rights, the separation and balance of powers, proportionality, equality before the law and non-discrimination and also invoked Articles 1 and 14 of the Convention. On 4 May 2011 the Regional Court, relying on the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 February 2010 (see paragraphs 91-106 below), dismissed the appeal. The Warsaw Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment on 15 October 2011. 10.     Wyszomirska and Others v. Poland (no. 62131/10) 51.     The application was lodged by 15 Polish nationals: Ms Renata Wyszomirska (“the first applicant), born in 1946; Ms Ewa Linowska (“the second applicant”), born in 1958, Ms Grażyna Piasny (“the third applicant”), born in 1957; Ms Anna Kończak (“the fourth applicant”), born in 1947, Ms Katarzyna Pilarska (“the fifth applicant”), born in 1935, Ms   Ewa Kamińska (“the sixth applicant”), born in 1957; Ms Urszula Kaczorowska (“the seventh applicant”) born in 1944; Mr Zbigniew Wyszomirski (“the eight applicant”) born in 1943; Mr Mariusz Klauzo (“the ninth applicant”), born in 1940; Mr Sławomir Kazimierz Tokarski (“the tenth applicant”) born in 1943; Mr Juliusz Kowalski (“the eleventh applicant”) born in 1950; Mr Stanisław Laskowski (“the twelfth applicant”), born in 1946; Ms Halina Czapska (“the thirteenth applicant”) born in 1961; Ms Ewa Stępniewska (“the fourteenth applicant”) born in 1957 and Ms   Teresa Pieńkowska (“the fifteenth applicant”) born in 1951. The applicants, except for the seventh and the twelfth applicants who reside in Legionowo, live in Warsaw. In the proceedings before the Court they were represented by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 52.     On 9 October 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, pursuant to section 15b read in conjunction with section 32(1)(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the IPN, issued a decision on the re-assessment of the first applicant’s pension, whereby her benefit was reduced from PLN   2,015.53 (net) to PLN 1,780.46 (gross)/ PLN 1,484.22 (net) monthly. 53.     Similar decisions were issued in respect of the remaining applicants: –     on 12 October 2009 the second applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN 3,072.16 (gross)/PLN 2,526.67 (net); the pension’s basis of assessment was reduced from 75% to 52.94%. Pursuant to an indexation decision of 12   March 2010, the applicant’s pension was fixed at PLN 2,689.41 (net). The applicant has failed to specify the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 4 May 2009, which she produced, stated that her pension was fixed at PLN 3,560.62 (net). –     on 26 February 2010 the third applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN   3,103.40 (net); she has failed to specify the amount before the decrease. On 16 June 2010 her old-age pension was lowered to PLN   2,455.04 (net) due to the fact that she was in paid employment, which justified a statutory reduction of her social security benefits; –     on 28 October 2009 the fourth applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 1,669.85 (net) to PLN 1,100.97 (gross)/PLN 934.88 (net); –     on 23 October 2009 the fifth applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN   944.38 (gross)/PLN 809.39 (net). The applicant has failed to specify the amount before the decrease; –     on 12 October 2009 the sixth applicant’s benefit was reduced from 4,341.31 (gross) to PLN 3,261.77 (gross); the pension’s basis of assessment was reduced from 75% to 56.35% ; –     on 24 November 2009 the seventh applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 2,368.61(gross) to PLN 1,344.31 (gross); –     on 28 October 2009 the eighth applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN   1,805.61 (gross); according to the applicant, his pension’s basis of assessment was reduced from 75% to 43.53%. He has not specified clearly the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 27 February 2009, which he submitted, stated that the net amount of his pension was fixed at PLN 2,557.98 (net) in 2009. In his case, the social security authority issued three decisions: the first of 28 October 2009 (described above), the second of 17 December 2009 specifying the gross (PLN 1,805.61) and net (PLN 1,504.11) amounts of his pension and the third (indexation decision) of 26 February 2010 fixing his pension at PLN 1,699.94 (net); –     on 15 October 2009 the ninth applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 2,698.19 (net) to PLN 1,596.77 (gross)/PLN 1,336.06 (net) ; –     on 8 October 2009 the tenth applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN   3,504.73(gross) to PLN 2,245.65 (gross); –     on 4 November 2009 the eleventh applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,703.78 (gross). The applicant has failed to state clearly the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 27 February 2009, which he submitted, indicated that for 2009 his pension was increased to PLN   1,952.69 (gross)/PLN 1,622.95 (net). Subsequently, by an indexation decision of 26 February 2010, the applicant’s gross pension of PLN   1,782.50 was reduced by PLN 1,336.87 due to the fact that he was in paid employment, which justified a statutory reduction of his old-age benefits. In consequence, the applicant’s pension was fixed at PLN 1,125.55 (net) for 2010. –     on 23 September 2009 the twelfth applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 2,321.01 (net) to PLN 1,765.00 (gross)/PLN 1,471.15 (net); –     on 9 October 2009 the thirteenth applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,742.45 (gross)/PLN 1,453.63; the pension’s basis of assessment was reduced from 45.75% to 35.46%. The applicant has failed to state clearly the amount before the decrease but an indexation decision of 27 February 2009, which she submitted, indicated that her pension was fixed at PLN   2,258.40 (gross)/PLN 1,870.14 (net) for 2009; –     on 13 October 2009 the fourteenth applicant’s benefit was reduced to PLN 1,450.51 (gross)/PLN 1,217.96 (net); the pension’s basis of assessment was reduced from 55.19% to 42.52%. The applicant has failed to state clearly the amount before the decrease; –     on 19 October 2009 the fifteenth applicant’s benefit was reduced from PLN 3,418.28 (gross)/PLN 2,806.63 (net) to PLN 2,954.31 (gross)/ PLN   2,432.42 (net). 54.     The applicants, on various dates, appealed to the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division, submitting in essence that the social security authority had misinterpreted the provisions of the 2009 Act and that the impugned decisions were unlawful and contrary to the Constitution and international treaties ratified by Poland. In particular, they relied on Articles   2, 8, 10, 30 and 32 of the Constitution, asserting that the legislature had overstepped its competence because it had imposed collective punishment on them, that it had failed to respect the principle of protection of acquired rights and that they were discriminated against on account of their service with the State security authorities. They also invoked Articles   6, 7, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicants have not informed the Court about the outcome of the appeal proceedings. 11.     Remaining cases listed in the appendix