CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 juin 2002

.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 43 June 2002 Azinas v. Cyprus - 56679/00 Judgment 20.6.2002 [Section III] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Loss of pension rights as automatic consequence of dismissal from civil service: violation Facts : In 1982, the Public Service Commission decided to dismiss the applicant from the civil service, as he had been convicted of stealing, breach of trust and abuse of authority. The dismissal had the consequence that the applicant forfeited his retirement benefits, including his pension, from the date of his conviction. His request for the decision to be annulled and his subsequent appeal were rejected. Law : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The right to a pension which is based on employment can in certain circumstances be assimilated to a property right, for example where special contributions have been paid or where, as in the present case, an employer has given a more general undertaking to pay a pension on conditions which can be considered to be part of the employment contract. Having regard to the relevant provisions of the Pension Law, the applicant, when entering the public service, acquired a right which constituted a “possession” and forfeiture of the retirement benefits constituted an interference with his property right. The interference was neither an expropriation nor a control of use and therefore fell to be examined under the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article   1. It was undoubtedly necessary for the national authorities to take disciplinary measures in addition to the criminal conviction of the applicant, but while the imposition of the sanction of dismissal might be said to be aimed at protecting the public and safeguarding its trust in the integrity of the administration, the automatic forfeiture of the pension could not be said to serve any commensurate purpose. The consequences were particularly harsh because the applicant and his family were deprived of any means of subsistence and in the circumstances   the appropriate balance between the protection of the individual’s right of property and public interest requirements was not struck. Conclusion : violation (6 votes to 1) Article 41 – The Court reserved the question of just satisfaction.   © 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