CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 février 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 127 February 2010 Aizpurua Ortiz and Others v. Spain - 42430/05 Judgment 2.2.2010 [Section III] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Collective bargaining agreement modifying rights to supplementary retirement pension acquired under an earlier collective agreement: no violation   Facts – On taking early retirement, and under the terms of a collective agreement concluded in 1983 between the company which employed them and representatives of the workforce, the fifty-six applicants received a supplementary annual pension payable in the form of an annuity until the age of sixty-five and thereafter on a variable-rate basis. In 1994 the company stopped paying the supplementary pension. The applicants brought actions before the courts, which found in their favour. Under a new collective agreement which entered into force in 2000, the conditions governing payment of the supplementary benefits were modified to reflect the significant change in economic conditions since 1983. This agreement repealed all previous agreements granting entitlement to a supplementary pension. Employees who had been in receipt of such a pension were henceforth eligible for a one-off payment only. In 2005 the Supreme Court found that the company had been entitled to stop paying the pensions in question and dismissed the applicants’ claims. Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Given that the applicants had had at least a legitimate expectation of continuing to receive the supplementary pension provided for by the 1983 collective agreement, this pension entitlement constituted an asset falling within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The modification or abolition of the right to a supplementary retirement pension based on the collective agreement concluded in 2000 and validated by a final ruling of the Supreme Court in 2005 had amounted to interference with the applicants’ property rights. The issue at stake concerned a collective agreement concluded between private individuals, which had been incorporated in subsequent collective bargaining agreements. The latter had binding effect within the Spanish legal system. The Supreme Court had found that, unless otherwise provided, the rights conferred by an earlier collective agreement could cease to be effective if they were revised by a later collective agreement. It had given its ruling after hearing evidence from the interested parties, on the basis of its case-law established in a judgment of 16 July 2003. Furthermore, as it had observed in its 2005 ruling, the impugned clause of the collective agreement had not done away with the applicants’ entitlements, but had replaced them with payment of a lump sum. The Supreme Court had also found that the change in the applicants’ entitlements had resulted from the company’s financial difficulties. Accordingly, the interference complained of had pursued an aim in the general interest, namely to secure the finances of companies and their creditors, to protect employment and to ensure respect for the right to collective bargaining. Lastly, as the Supreme Court had also noted, the change to the applicants’ entitlements had not been discriminatory, given that the company’s active workforce had waived their entitlement to a supplementary pension under the terms of a 1995 collective agreement. Those reasons could not be said to be unreasonable or disproportionate. There was no evidence to suggest that the Supreme Court ruling had been arbitrary or had imposed a disproportionate burden on the applicants on account of the change to their supplementary pension rights. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to one).   © 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