CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 January 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 5731/24 Rut PÉTURSDÓTTIR against Iceland lodged on 20 February 2024 communicated on 9 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns legislative reforms to the public old-age and disability pension scheme in Iceland which took effect on 1 January 2017. The reforms allegedly created novel statutory differences in treatment between old ‑ age and disability pensioners by altering the rules regarding the effects of other income on old-age pensions but not disability pensions. As a result, persons who prior to 1 January 2017 were treated similarly with respect to the effects of other income on their pensions - regardless of their status as either old ‑ age or disability pensioners - were, after that date, treated differently. Ms Rut Pétursdóttir, who was a disability pensioner during the relevant period, alleges that, whereas the special subsistence supplement for old ‑ age and disability pensioners had previously been subject to identical treatment regarding the marginal effect of other income, the reforms introduced an unjustified disparity: disability pensioners’ benefits continued in this respect to be reduced at a 100% marginal rate, while old-age pensioners’ benefits were reduced by only 45% of their income. The domestic courts rejected her claims that the differential treatment violated Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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 old-age pensioners and disability pensioners in an “analogous or relevantly similar situation” within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention (see Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no.   78117/13, §§ 113 and 121 ‑ 29, 5 September 2017, and Milivojević v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   11944/16, § 26, 5   July 2022)? In light of the nature of the complaint, in what manner did the legislative definition of benefits entitlements and reductions affect the situation of the two groups both before and after the reform of the public benefits scheme?   2.     Assuming the two groups were in an “analogous or relevantly similar situation”, 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?   3.     Given that the Contracting States remain free to choose the type or amount of benefits to provide under any public pension scheme on the condition that it conforms to the requirements of Article 14 of the Convention (see Stec and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   65731/01 and 65900/01, §   53, ECHR 2006-VI), did the fact that the relevant legislation did not extend the level of benefits received by old-age pensioners to pensioners in Ms   Rut Pétursdóttir’s situation violate Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (compare Konstantin Markin v.   Russia [GC], no.   30078/06, §§   130 and 151, ECHR 2012 (extracts)?