CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 octobre 2005

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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 79 October 2005 Papon v. France (dec.) - 344/04 Decision 11.10.2005 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Right to a pension of a former member of Parliament: article 6 inapplicable The applicant was convicted of aiding and abetting a crime against humanity. One of the consequences was the suspension of his pension entitlement as a former Member of Parliament. That decision by the National Assembly was appealed against in the administrative courts, which were found by the Conseil d'État not to have jurisdiction in such matters. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 – Members of Parliament are not civil servants and their pension fund is not part of the ordinary system but is governed by the National Assembly, being funded by a contribution deducted from each MP’s parliamentary allowance and by a subsidy paid out of the Assembly’s budget. In sum, the applicant’s entitlement to receive his MP’s pension was directly related to his former status as MP and was thus an entitlement which, being political in nature, did not fall within the scope of Article 6 § 1. This was particularly the case since, as with MPs’ allowances, their pension scheme was introduced to guarantee independence in the performance of their duties: incompatible ratione materiae . Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The proceedings in question did not concern the decision to suspend the pension but a request for the restoration of that pension and thus did not concern a “possession” to which the applicant could have claimed title: 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