CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 mars 2000

.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 16 March 2000 J.S. v. Poland (dec.) - 33945/96 Decision 23.3.2000 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Possessions Refusal of compensation or special allowance for forced labour performed during military service: inadmissible The applicants claimed compensation from the State for forced labour imposed on them during their compulsory military service in the 1950’s; most of them claimed additional compensatory sums, in particular for the holidays to which they should have been entitled. Their compensation claims were all rejected by the domestic courts. One of the applicants, K.P., unsuccessfully lodged an appeal against the first instance decision refusing him compensation. The applicants maintained that they should have been granted a special allowance considering the ordeal which the forced labour had represented for them. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: All the applicants except K.P. failed to appeal against the first instance decisions of refusal and thus only K.P. exhausted domestic remedies. However, there is nothing to indicate that he was unable to submit his arguments to the courts or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair. Moreover, no entitlement to compensation for persons in the same situation as the applicants is provided for by law, and the Court cannot create any substantive rights which have no basis in domestic law: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Even assuming that this provision guarantees benefits to persons who have contributed to a social insurance scheme, it cannot be interpreted as entitling these persons to a pension of a particular amount or to any given kind of social insurance benefit. Finally, this provision does not recognise any right to acquire possessions: 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