CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s6BFBBAD6 { width:87.74%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s707AD94C { width:8.58%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .s8F797534 { width:33.56%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s6D5FF8B2 { width:19.72%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2FED1F45 { width:19.08%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s4E3C3E61 { width:19.08%; border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sBF187628 { width:8.58%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE1A464B0 { width:33.56%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s10801329 { width:19.72%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1643742B { width:19.08%; border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFB779CD0 { width:8.58%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .sBA8C57C5 { width:33.56%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .sA838761E { width:19.72%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .sB23C9B90 { width:19.08%; border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } Communicated on 29 January 2020 Published on 17 February 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 77396/14 Constantinos CONSTANTINOU and others against Cyprus lodged on 9 December 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the deduction of a tiered percentage monthly from the applicants’ gross salaries on the basis of the Law on Extraordinary Contribution of Officials, Employees and Pensioners of the Civil Service and the Wider Public Sector of 2011 (Law no. 112(I)/2011, as amended) from 1 September 2011 until 31 December 2016. The applicants’ details are listed in the appendix. The applicants’ recourses challenging the constitutionality of the above Law were dismissed by the Supreme Court sitting as a full bench (that is, all thirteen judges) on 11 June 2014. The Supreme Court also found that the measures taken were not in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention. Three justices, however, dissented. The applicants complain that the deduction of an extraordinary contribution from their salaries by Law no. 112(I)/2011 violated Article   1 of Protocol No. 1. They also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that the reduction of their salaries, on the basis of their status as public officers, was discriminatory. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr L. Loucaides, a lawyer practising in Nicosia. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the impugned measures under Law no. 112(I)/2011 constitute an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, bearing in mind that the protection of the right to property under Article 23 of the Constitution is wider than that provided for by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, can it be said that the interference was in accordance with domestic law? Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in a democratic society? 2 Did the impugned measures under Law no. 112(I)/2011 discriminate against the applicants in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention on the ground that they were public officers? APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name Birth date Place of residence Recourse number before the Supreme Court 1 Constantinos CONSTANTINOU 01/01/1967 Limassol 1591/2011 2 Andrianna ACHILLEOS 31/01/1962 Nicosia 1483/2011 3 George CHARALAMBOUS 15/10/1948 Nicosia 1480/2011 4 Maria CHRISTOFOROU 09/09/1959 Nicosia 1625/2011 5 Thefilaxtos FILAXTOU 09/07/1973 Nicosia 1591/2011 6 George FLOURENTZOU 07/02/1952 Nicosia 1481/2011 7 Antonis KOUTSOULI 23/02/1959 Nicosia 1484/2011 8 Evstratios MATHAIOU 31/10/1956 Nicosia 1482/2011