CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 avril 2012

.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 } .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. 151 April 2012 Manzanas Martín v. Spain - 17966/10 Judgment 3.4.2012 [Section III] Article 14 Discrimination Difference in treatment between Evangelical Church ministers and Catholic priests as regards number of years of pastoral activity taken into account when calculating pension rights: violation   Facts – The applicant was a minister of the Evangelical Church from November 1952 until he retired in June 1991. During his years as a minister he received remuneration from the Permanent Commission of the Evangelical Church. However, the latter did not pay any social-security contributions on the applicant’s behalf as there was no provision for this in the legislation in force. The applicant had worked as an employee before being ordained, and had also been in paid employment for part of his time as a minister. When he applied to the National Social Security Agency (“the INSS”) for a retirement pension, his application was refused on the ground that he had not completed the minimum period of pensionable service. He subsequently brought proceedings against the INSS in the employment tribunal, alleging that he had been discriminated against in so far as Spanish law allowed Catholic priests to receive a retirement pension because they were covered by the general social-security scheme. In December 2005 the employment tribunal ordered the INSS to pay the applicant a retirement pension. It found that the national legislature had given Catholic priests preferential treatment as compared with Evangelical Church ministers.The INSS appealed against that decision. In July 2007 the High Court of Justice set the decision aside. The applicant unsuccessfully lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court. Law – Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (a)     Applicability – The Court had to determine whether, had it not been for the precondition in question, the applicant would have had a right, which he could assert before the domestic courts, to receive the pension in question. The applicant complained that he had been deprived of a retirement pension on discriminatory grounds, namely, his religious creed. Under domestic law, only Catholic priests could have their previous years of service taken into consideration in calculating the statutory minimum period of fifteen years necessary to be eligible for a retirement pension on condition that they paid the corresponding capital payments. Accordingly, the applicant’s pecuniary interests fell within the scope of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions guaranteed under that provision, which was sufficient to render Article   14 of the Convention applicable. (b)     Merits – The applicant considered that Evangelical Church priests were treated differently and discriminated against under domestic law as compared with Catholic priests in so far as the latter had been admitted to the general social-security regime twenty-two years earlier and had thus been able to comply with the minimum period of pensionable service in order to benefit from a retirement pension by bringing into account their earlier years of service. The Court observed that none of the possibilities afforded to Catholic priests to bring into account their years of pensionable service pre-dating their integration into the social-security scheme had been granted to Evangelical Church ministers under Spanish law. That prejudicial difference in the rules amounted to an unjustified difference in treatment based on the applicant’s religious beliefs compared with the treatment of Catholic priests, in so far as the applicant had no means of having his earlier years of service as an Evangelical Church minister – prior to the integration of Evangelical Church ministers into the social-security scheme – taken into account for the calculation of his retirement pension. Whilst the reasons for the delay in integrating ministers into the general social-security scheme fell within the States’ margin of appreciation, the reasons for maintaining a difference in treatment between similar situations, based solely on grounds of religious belief, were unjustified. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage reserved.   © 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