CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 14 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCED75C42 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC7411871 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCF155EAA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sD8AE9261 { width:36.9pt; display:inline-block } .s756AA39C { width:164.45pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 33274/22 Irena KŁUCIŃSKA-GŁUSZCZAK against Poland   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14   October 2025 as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato,   Davor Derenčinović,   Alain Chablais,   Artūrs Kučs,   Anna Adamska-Gallant , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 June 2022, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 1.     The applicant, Ms Irena Kłucińska-Głuszczak, is a Polish national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Legionowo. She was represented before the Court by Mr W. Czajka, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 2.     The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Kozińska-Makowska, subsequently replaced by Mr   Paweł Wierdak of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant’s professional career 4.     In 1976 the applicant was employed by the Civil Militia ( Milicja Obywatelska ). She was appointed as an officer for the period of preparatory service to the position of senior assistant of Cycle III at the Higher Officer School of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Legionowo. She worked as lecturer in that school and taught forensic science and introduction to jurisprudence. 5.     On 1 December 1977 the applicant became a senior assistant of Cycle   III of the Higher Officer School in Legionowo. In order to continue her employment as officer-lecturer, she was required to complete postgraduate studies at the Academy of Internal Affairs and obtain an officer’s rank. 6.     On 26 August 1979 the applicant was appointed as a permanent officer. 7.     On 15 August 1980 she became a lecturer in the post of assistant professor. On 1 November 1986 she became a lecturer of Cycle VI at the Higher Officer School in Legionowo and, on 1 October 1989, she became a lecturer as Assistant Professor of the Department of Law at the Academy of Internal Affairs in Legionowo. 8.     In 1990, having passed a verification procedure, she was assigned to the Police Training Centre in Legionowo. She continued her career in various positions in Legionowo and subsequently also in the Officer’s College in Szcytno until 2006. 9.     On 16 March 2006 the applicant was granted the right to an old ‑ age pension for former functionaries of the uniformed services. First reduction of the applicant’s benefits 10 .     In 2009 the Director of the Board for Pensions issued a decision decreasing the applicant’s pension on the basis of the Law of 23 January 2009 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 (“the 2009 Act”). The 2009 Act, which came 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 (“the   1994   Act”). In particular, one of the coefficients relevant for the calculation of pensions of former functionaries was decreased from 2.6% to 0.7% for each year of service with the former communist State security authorities in the period from 1944 to 1990 (see   Cichopek and Others v. Poland   (dec.),   nos. 15189/10 and 1,627 others, §§   68 ‑ 72, 14 May 2013). Second reduction of the applicant’s benefits and judicial proceedings 11.     On 20 June 2017 the Director of the Board for Pensions, in accordance with amended sections 15c and 22a read in conjunction with section 32(1) of the 1994 Act (see paragraphs 21-24 below) and on the basis of information received from the Institute for National Remembrance, issued a decision on the recalculation of the applicant’s monthly pension whereby the benefit was reduced again, from 4,943.87 Polish zlotys (PLN - equivalent to approximately 1,180 euros (EUR)) to PLN 1,766.92 (equivalent to approximately EUR 420). 12.     The applicant appealed against that decision. She was successful before the Warsaw Regional Court which, by a judgment of 23 June 2021 determined her old-age pension in the amount set before the decision of 20   June 2017. 13.     On 24 February 2022, upon an appeal by the Director of the Board for Pensions, the Warsaw Court of Appeal partly amended the challenged judgment and determined that the coefficient of the applicant’s pension for the years 1976-90 should be 0%, holding that in that period the applicant had served a totalitarian regime. The court considered, however, that the applicant should retain the rights to her pension in the full amount as regards her service after she had passed the verification procedure, that is, for the period between 31   July 1990 and 15 February 2006, when she had retired. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal referred to the resolution of the Supreme Court of 16   September 2020, in accordance with which “the criterion of ‘service for a totalitarian regime’ should be assessed on the basis of all the circumstances of the case, including on the basis of individual acts and their verification from the standpoint of a violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms” (see paragraph   26 below). 14.     Both parties lodged cassation appeals against the judgment of the Court of Appeal. 15.     On 18 May 2023 the Supreme Court refused to examine the cassation appeals. Developments after communication of the application to the Government 16.     On 12 March 2024 the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration established its Plenipotentiary for Administrative Proceedings to handle requests for re-determination of pension lodged by former functionaries of the uniformed services. 17.     On 5 April 2024 the applicant submitted a request to the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration on the basis of section 8a of the amended 1994   Act and requested that the Minister find that sections 15c, 22a and 24a were inapplicable in relation to her. 18 .     On 20 August 2024 the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration issued a decision on the basis of section 8a of the amended 1994 Act and excluded the application of sections 15c, 22a and 24a in relation to the applicant. Consequently, she was eligible to receive the pension in the amount set before its decrease in 2017. 19 .     On 19 September 2024 the Director of the Board for Pensions redetermined the amount of the applicant’s pension in accordance with the decision of 20 August 2024, which totalled a gross amount of PLN   11,892.99 which, after the deduction of income tax and health insurance contribution, amounted to PLN   7,316.62 (approximately EUR 1,740). Consequently, on 26   September 2024 the applicant was paid the compensation due from 1   October 2017 until 30   September 2024 in the gross amount of PLN   245,700.14, which, after the deduction of income tax and health insurance contributions, amounted to PLN   154,544.13 (approximately EUR   36,800) of outstanding pension including indexation to which the applicant was eligible. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE 20.     The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the pension entitlements of former functionaries of the uniformed services was described in   the decision in the case of Cichopek   and Others (cited above, §§   63-87). 21 .     On 1 January 2017 an amendment of 16 December 2016 (“the 2016   Act”) to the 1994 Act came into force. In particular, section 15c was added, which provided that one of the coefficients relevant for the calculation of the pensions of former functionaries was decreased from 0.7% to 0% for each year of service for the former communist State security authorities in the period 1944-90. 22.     Section 15c (3) of the amended 1994 Act provides that the amount of old-age pension calculated on the newly introduced principles could not be higher than the average monthly old-age pension paid by the Social Security Board, as announced by the President of the Board. 23.     Section 22a of the amended 1994 Act provides that the disability pension for a person who served a totalitarian regime is reduced by 10% for each year of service for the totalitarian regime. 24 .     Section 8a of the amended 1994 Act provides that the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration may, in particularly justified cases, exclude the application of sections 15c, 22a and 24a in relation to persons performing service referred to in section 13b of that Act, taking into account (1) that the service was not of substantial length ( służba krótkotrwała ) before 31   July1990 and (2) the thorough performance of tasks and obligations after 12   September 1989, in particular with risk to health and life ( z narażeniem zdrowia i życia ). Proceedings before the Constitutional Court 25 .     On 27 February 2018, in a similar case concerning the decrease of an old-age pension for former functionaries, the Warsaw Regional Court referred a legal question ( pytanie prawne ) to the Constitutional Court. It was registered under case no. P 4/18. On 18 August 2020 the Constitutional Court heard submissions from the Prosecutor General and representatives of the   Sejm   (the lower house of Parliament). On 20 October 2020 the Constitutional Court decided not to deliver a judgment in the case on that day. Since then, no decision has been taken. Resolution of the Supreme Court 26 .     On 16 September 2020 the Supreme Court, sitting as a bench of seven judges, issued Resolution no. III UZP 1/20 on the interpretation of the 1994   Act, adopted in response to a legal question submitted by a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court. It read as follows: “The criterion of ‘service for a totalitarian regime’, referred to in section 13b(1) 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, should be assessed on the basis of all the circumstances of the case, including on the basis of individual acts and their verification from the standpoint of a violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms.” THE LAW 27.     The applicant complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, maintaining that under the 2016 Act her pension had been reduced in a manner incompatible with that provision. The parties’ submissions 28 .     In their observations, the Government raised a preliminary objection that the application should be declared incompatible ratione personae , since the applicant had lost her victim status in relation to a potential violation of the Convention since her pension had been increased after the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal. They further asserted that the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage, since her pension had ultimately been recalculated and the whole outstanding amount had been paid to her. The decreased benefit had been paid to her only for the period of the judicial proceedings, that is, for some three years and 10 months. The Government, referring to Cichopek and Others v. Poland   (dec.), nos. 15189/10 and 1,627   others, 14 May 2013, further asserted that the application should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill ‑ founded. 29 .     In their further observations submitted in reply to the applicant’s observations, the Government stated that the 2016 Act concerned some 40,000 former uniformed functionaries. The Government further referred to section   8a of the 2016 Act and submitted that on 12 March 2024 the Minister of Interior and Administration had established its Plenipotentiary for Administrative Proceedings. Since that appointment, 1,112 decisions reestablishing old-age pensions had been delivered and in only six cases had the courts refused to apply section 8a of the 2016 Act. They further stated that the applicant had submitted a request under section 8a of the 2016 Act and that her request had been granted. Given that the applicant had failed to inform the Court of that fact, the Government considered that the application should be declared inadmissible for abuse of the right of individual application by the applicant. 30 .     In her observations submitted on 17 December 2024, the applicant argued that she still had victim status, even though the judgment of the Court of Appeal had partly increased her old-age pension. She also considered that she had suffered a significant disadvantage because she had been receiving a reduced benefit for almost four years. As regards Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, she submitted that she had been arbitrarily deprived of a significant part of her pension in a way which could not be justified by any legitimate aim or public interest. 31.     In her further comments submitted after the Government’s additional observations, the applicant argued that the fact that she had received a positive ruling under section 8a of the 2016 Act and, consequently, had been paid the full amount covering the seven years of outstanding benefits, had no significance for the present application. In particular, she asserted that the payment in question had been made to her without interest, which, in her view, constituted a further violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The application of Article 37 of the Convention 32.     In the present case, the Court does not consider it necessary to reach a conclusion on the objections raised by the Government. In the light of the parties’ submissions, the Court considers that the present application can be struck out of its list pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention for the reasons set out below. 33.     Article 37 § 1 in so far as relevant reads as follows: 1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... (b)     the matter has been resolved; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols so requires.”. In order to ascertain whether that provision applies to the present case, the Court must examine, firstly, whether the circumstances complained of directly by an applicant still obtain and, secondly, whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have also been redressed (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no.   36732/97, §   42, 24 October 2002; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no.   60654/00, §§ 96 ‑ 97, ECHR   2007-I; El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, §§   29 ‑ 30, 20   December 2007; and, most recently, Vadalà v. Italy (dec.), no.   14656/15, §   37, 7   November 2023). 34.     In the instant case, as regards the applicant’s complaint of being deprived of a large part of her old-age pension in violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, the Court considers that, following the decision issued by the Minister of Interior and Administration on 20 August 2024 under section   8a of the 2016 Act and the subsequent recalculation of her old-age pension in accordance with the decision of the Director of the Board for Pensions of 19   September 2024 (see paragraphs 18 and 19 above), which granted the applicant social benefits in the same amount as that which she had been paid before the decrease of her pension in 2017 and by which the applicant had been paid retrospectively the entire outstanding amount for the period from 1   October 2017 until 30 September 2024, the circumstances complained of by the applicant no longer obtain and the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have been redressed. The Court finds therefore that both conditions for the application of Article   37   §   1   (b) of the Convention are met (see   El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee , cited above, §§   30-34, and Vadalà , cited above, §   35). 35.     As regards the applicant’s arguments that she was paid the amount due without interest, it appears that the applicant is free to lodge a claim for payment for damages before the domestic courts and request that the interest for the years when she was receiving the reduced pension be granted to her. 36.     Accordingly, the matter giving rise to the application under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 can be considered to have been “resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. The Court also reiterates that it is not required, for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, that the national authorities acknowledge a violation of the Convention or that the applicant, in addition to having obtained a resolution of the matter, is also granted compensation (see H.P. v. Denmark (dec.), no.   55607/09, §   78, 13   December 2016). Lastly, no particular reason relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention requires the Court to continue the examination of the complaints at issue under Article 37 § 1 in fine . 37.     Consequently, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 6 November 2025.     Ilse Freiwirth   Ivana Jelić   Registrar   President