CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 décembre 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 191 December 2015 Fábián v. Hungary - 78117/13 Judgment 15.12.2015 [Section IV] Article 14 Discrimination Difference in treatment between publicly and privately employed retirees and between various categories of civil servants as regards payment of old-age pension: violation [This case was referred to the Grand Chamber on 2 May 2016] Facts – In 2012 the applicant, who was already in receipt of an old-age pension, took up employment as a civil servant. In 2013 an amendment to the Pension Act 1997 entered into force suspending the payment of old-age pensions to persons simultaneously employed in certain categories of the public sector. As a consequence, the payment of the applicant’s pension was suspended. His administrative appeal against that decision was unsuccessful. The restriction did not apply to pensioners working in the private sector. In the Convention proceedings, the applicant complained of an unjustified and discriminatory interference with his property rights, in breach of Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. Law – Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1: The applicant’s pension right was a pecuniary right within the ambit of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and his status as a pensioner simultaneously employed in the public sphere could be considered “other status” for the purposes of Article   14 of the Convention. Article   14 was therefore applicable. The difference in treatment pursued the legitimate aim of reducing public expenditure. There were in fact two forms of difference in treatment: one between different categories of employees in the public sphere, and the other between persons employed in the private and public spheres. As regards the former, the Court could see no justification from the perspective of reducing public expenditure for the difference in treatment between different categories of employees in the public sector and accepted that the exempted State employees were in a situation analogous to that of the applicant. As to the difference in treatment between the public and private spheres, while it was true that only public employees received two sets of income from public sources, the Government’s core argument – that no State pension should be paid to those who did not need a substitute for salary as they were already employed – applied equally to retired persons employed in the private sphere because, from that perspective, pensions paid to them could also be regarded as redundant public expenditure. These two groups were thus also in an analogous situation. The Government’s arguments to justify the difference in treatment between publicly and privately employed retirees on the one hand, and between various categories of civil servants on the other, were unpersuasive and thus not based on any “objective and reasonable justification”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 15,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (See also Gaygusuz v. Austria , 17371/90 , 16   September 1996; and Carson and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], 42184/05, 16   March 2010, Information Note   128 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes