CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 septembre 2016

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom: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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 200 October 2016 Mauriello v. Italy (dec.) - 14862/07 Decision 13.9.2016 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Inability of public servant who did not qualify for a pension to obtain reimbursement of her pension contributions: inadmissible Facts – The applicant, who had been employed as a civil servant for ten years, was obliged to retire in December 2000 as she had reached the compulsory retirement age. The lump sum in lieu of a pension to which the applicant was entitled, amounting to about EUR 7,000, had been paid into the civil-service pension fund with a view to creating her pension account. She thus lost a sum corresponding to a third of her salary, paid in as contributions every month throughout the entire duration of her civil-service employment. Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The requirement to pay retirement-pension contributions amounted in principle to an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions, guaranteed by Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. Thus, that provision was applicable in the present case. The deprivation of the sum in question for the purpose of creating a pension fund was an interference provided for by “law”, and had the legitimate aim of guaranteeing the funding of the insurance system, based on the principle of solidarity. According to the Constitutional Court, the principle of non-reimbursement of contributions and the more general principles of “the unavailability of the contributions” to the pensions fund and the lack of correlation between the contributions paid in and the benefits paid out were not only compatible   with the social model, but arose from the very structure of that model. Thus, it was clear from the Constitutional Court’s case-law that the legislature enjoyed almost total discretion in striking a balance between the different interests at stake: it could establish the categories of individuals concerned and decide if and to what extent those individuals were entitled to have their contributions returned. The law recognised entitlement to a pension for civil servants who had worked for at least 15 years. As the applicant had paid contributions for about 10 years, she did not meet the criteria for obtaining a pension. However, she had begun to work and thus to pay contributions at a point when it was certain that she would not obtain entitlement to a pension. While it was not for the Court to speculate on the reasons why the applicant had chosen to begin working at an age that was too advanced to enable her to obtain entitlement to a pension, it was certain that the contested decision had not come as a surprise and that it had been entirely foreseeable. In conclusion, given the wide margin of appreciation enjoyed by the State in this area, the interference in question had not amounted to a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © 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