CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     650 15.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Moskal v. Poland (application no. 10373/05 )     REDUCTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY PENSION FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES’ CORRECTION OF THEIR OWN ERROR     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts and procedure   The applicant, Maria Moskal, is a Polish national born in 1955 who lives in Glinik Chorzewski (Poland). She is the mother of a child born in 1994 who suffers from asthma, various allergies and recurring infections. This is the first of about 120 similar applications which have been lodged with the Court, all from the same region of Poland, concerning the revocation of erroneously awarded early-retirement pensions awarded to parents with children requiring permanent health care.   In August 2001 Ms Moskal asked the Social Security Board for an early retirement pension in order to care for her child who, she claimed, needed constant care because of his medical condition. Her request was granted from 1 September 2001 after which she gave up her job of 30 years. Subsequently she was issued a pensioner’s identity card marked “valid indefinitely” and for the following ten months she received her early retirement pension without interruption.   In June 2002 the Social Security Board decided to discontinue the payment of Ms Moskal’s pension from 1 July 2002. The Board found in particular that the medical documentation in support of the applicant’s request submitted the previous year had been insufficient.   Ms Moskal appealed unsuccessfully in court against the discontinuation of her pension. The final domestic judicial instance – the Supreme Court – found that reopening was justified because the authorities had only found out that crucial evidence had been lacking from the file after the decision granting the pension had been taken. Ms Moskal was not asked to return her early retirement payments she had received till that date.   Between 1 July 2002 and 25 October 2005 Ms Moskal did not receive any social benefits and claimed she had no other income. Following separate social security proceedings, on 25   October 2005, the District Labour Office granted her a pre-retirement benefit amounting to approximately 50% of her discontinued early retirement pension; this benefit was granted with a retroactive effect starting from 25 October 2002, however, without interest.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 February 2005. Relying on Articles 6 and 8, and on Article 1 of Protocol No 1, Ms Moskal complained that the authorities had deprived her of her property in unfair proceedings.   Decision of the Court   The Court first noted that Ms Moskal had acquired a property right as a result of the 2001 Social Board’s decision granting her an early retirement pension. That decision had been in force for ten months before the authorities had become aware of their error. Although Ms Moskal had challenged her pension withdrawal in court, a judicial decision had only been taken two years later and in the meantime she had not received any social security benefits.   The Court emphasised that the authorities had to act with the utmost scrupulousness when dealing with matters of vital importance for individuals, such as welfare benefits. Thus, while public authorities had to be able to correct their mistakes, they had to take particular care to avoid that individuals bear excessive hardship as a result of their errors.   Following the authorities’ 2002 decision to stop Ms Moskal’s pension, found to have been granted wrongly, she had suddenly lost her only source of income. As she had only been granted the new pre-retirement benefit in October 2005, to half of the amount of the revoked pension and without any interest, it followed that the authorities’ mistake had left her with 50   % of her expected income, and that after three-years of proceedings. Consequently, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1. It was not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 and Article 8.     Judges Bratza, Hirvelä and Bianku expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion which is attached to the judgment.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments, with the composition of the Court, are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.