CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 juin 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 17 July 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 18195/23 Henryk RUTKOWSKI against Poland lodged on 21 April 2023 communicated on 27 June 2023   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application concerns the reduction of the applicant’s police old-age pension ( emerytura policyjna ) and raises similar issues to Cichopek and Others v.   Poland   ((dec.),   nos. 15189/10 and 1,627 others, 14   May 2013) and Bieliński v.   Poland (no. 48762/19, 21 July 2022). In 2017, following the entry into force of the amendments 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 ( 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”) an administrative decision was issued, recalculating the applicant’s old-age pension which he had been receiving since 1981. The recalculation, based on the fact that in 1954 the applicant had served a totalitarian regime for 16 days, led to a decrease of the pension by some 23%. The decision, which the applicant challenged, was immediately enforceable. Courts at two instances dismissed his appeals. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that the decrease of his pension constitutes a disproportionate interference with his acquired rights which, in turn, amounts to a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. He further complains that the second instance court examined his case in a composition of one judge appointed in the procedure established by the Law of 8   December 2017 Amending the Act of the National Council of the Judiciary, which gave rise to a violation of his right to an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law”, in breach of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the decrease of the applicant’s old-age pension amounted to an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so: (i) was the interference in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? (ii) did the interference complained of put an excessive individual burden on the applicant?   2.     Was the Szczecin Court of Appeal which dealt with the applicant’s appeal against the first instance judgment on 2 February 2023 (case no.   III   AUa   645/22) an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Advance Pharma sp.   z o.o v.   Poland , no.   1469/20, 3   February 2022, and Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v.   Iceland [GC], no.   26374/18, §§   205-290, 1   December 2020)?