CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 mai 2017

.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 208 June 2017 Persjanow v. Poland (communicated case) - 39247/12   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Suspension of pension following grant of another: communicated Article 14 Discrimination Alleged discrimination against former members of military as regards entitlement to pensions: communicated [This summary also covers the communicated case of Rał v. Poland , 41178/12.] Section 95(1) of the Law of 17   December 1998 provides that where a person is authorised to receive several of the benefits referred to in the Act, the person concerned shall be paid one benefit, either the most advantageous or that of his own choice. Both applicants served in the army and were granted military pensions. They were then employed outside of the military, paid compulsory contributions into the Social Insurance Fund and were granted retirement pensions. When calculating the retirement pensions, the Social Security Board did not take into account their periods of military service. The first applicant chose to receive the pension from the Social Insurance Fund and his military pension was suspended. The second applicant chose to be paid the military pension and payment of his pension from the Social Insurance Fund was suspended. The applicants’ appeals against the decisions of the Social Security Board were dismissed. In the Convention proceedings, the applicants complain that even though they are entitled to both a retirement pension from the Social Insurance Fund and a military pension they can only be paid one of these benefits and that either the period of employment or of military service will not be taken into account. Communicated under Article   14 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   © 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