CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 septembre 2007

.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. 100 August-September 2007 Phocas v. France - 15638/06 Decision 13.9.2007 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Introduction of new legislation after the date of an application for the modification of an order when such application was not regarded as a preliminary to court proceedings: inadmissible   Article 14 Discrimination Refusal to grant father a child bonus in the assessment of his pension rights following introduction, with retrospective effect, of new legislation applicable solely to males: inadmissible   The applicant, a civil servant and father of three, had his pension calculated by an order dated July 2003 which did not take account of the child bonus introduced by the Civil and Military Pensions Code and awarded to female civil servants in respect of each of their children. In 2001 the Court of Justice of the European Communities ruled that this provision was contrary to the principle of equal pay. The Conseil d’Etat decided in 2002 that another individual who had brought proceedings was entitled to the bonus laid down in the Code. The applicant requested that his pension be revised on the basis of the judgment of the Conseil d’Etat and the principle of equal pay for men and women. In August 2003 a new Law amended the provision in question and introduced the concept of interruption of employment. This concept was enshrined in a decree by the Conseil d’Etat in December 2003. In September 2003 the Minister of Economic and Financial Affairs rejected the applicant’s request as he was unable to demonstrate that he had interrupted his employment on the birth of his children. The applicant lodged an application with the administrative court, arguing that the rights conferred by the Pensions Code should apply to both female and male civil servants, and that the decision on the calculation of his pension was therefore discriminatory. He further argued that the refusal to revise his pension amounted to retrospective application of the new Law. In a series of judgments, the Conseil d’Etat held that, while the new Law had retrospectively deprived civil servants whose pensions had been calculated after 28 May 2003 of a claim, which had been certain in principle and in the amount thereof, to payment of the bonus, the retrospective application, which had lasted for less than three months, amounted to justified interference which was proportionate to the aim pursued. In addition, adoption of the provision had not been aimed at influencing the outcome of court proceedings in progress, nor had it had that effect. Accordingly, it had not deprived the persons concerned of their right of access to a court in order to assert their rights. On the basis of these considerations, the administrative court rejected the applicant’s application. In view of the case-law of the Conseil d’Etat , the applicant did not lodge an appeal on points of law. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 – The intervention by the legislature had come after the date on which the applicant had requested modification of the order calculating his pension. However, that request could not be considered as a preliminary to court proceedings to which the applicant was a party; those proceedings had begun only with the application to the administrative court. There had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the enactment of the new Law: manifestly ill-founded . Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 – The applicant had not had a claim with a sufficient basis in domestic law or, at least, a legitimate expectation of obtaining the bonus he applied for. Neither the law as it stood at the time nor the judgments of the Court of Justice and the Conseil d’Etat could award him the bonus payment unconditionally: incompatible ratione materiae.   © 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