CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 2024

.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 } .s94E5961 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92C89BB8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:108pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB71C1C6 { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sCFD9E2FD { width:33.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFCA859F0 { width:20.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD63ECEF0 { width:17.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD8C0DB99 { width:20.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s274C830C { width:7.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s715F30F4 { width:33.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBDAE9F8C { width:20.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8ECD9008 { width:17.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3671B59B { width:20.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 6 January 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 10129/23 Sigríður J. GUÐMUNDSDÓTTIR and Others against Iceland lodged on 27 February 2023 communicated on 16 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns Iceland’s 2017 pension reform enacted through Acts No. 116/2016 and 9/2017, which consolidated various pension categories into a single “old-age pension” and introduced a 45% reduction in public pension payments for individuals receiving more than ISK 25,000 per month from occupational pension funds. Under Article   14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complain that the reduction rule was discriminatory in two respects. First, they allege that it discriminated between different types of pension funds, applying only to pooled or mutual funds but not to personal asset funds, which were predominantly held by higher-income individuals. This form of discrimination, they claim, was subsequently acknowledged by the legislature, which amended the law in 2022 to include personal asset funds in the reduction rule. Second, the applicants argue that the rule discriminated based on ability to work, as wage income was subject to a more favourable threshold of ISK 100,000, compared to the ISK 25,000 threshold applicable to pension income. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article   14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular,   1.     Were the applicants in an “analogous or relevantly similar situation” to any other group within the meaning of Article   14 of the Convention (see Fábián v.   Hungary [GC], no.   78117/13, §§   113 and 121-29, 5   September 2017)? If so, what was the relevant comparator group?   2.     Assuming the two groups were in an “analogous or relevantly similar situation”, was the difference in treatment based on an identifiable characteristic, or “status”, within the meaning of Article   14 of the Convention?   3.     On the same assumption, was there an objective and reasonable justification for a difference in treatment between the two groups? In particular, did it pursue a legitimate aim and were the means employed reasonably proportionate to the aim pursued?     APPENDIX List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Sigríður J. GUÐMUNDSDÓTTIR 1942 Icelandic Selfoss 2. Ingibjörg H. SVERRISDOTTIR 1937 Icelandic Reykjavik 3. Wilhelm W.G. WESSMAN 1942 Icelandic Reykjavik