CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF74FAE64 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8.5pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } 809 29.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Si Amer v. France (no. 29137/06)     RESTRICTIONS ON RIGHT TO ADDITIONAL PENSION FOR PERSONS EMPLOYED IN ALGERIA BEFORE 1962 ARE NOT DISCRIMINATORY   No violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention   (The judgment is available only in French)     Principal facts   The applicant, Mr Youcef Si Amer, is an Algerian national who was born in 1939 and held French nationality until 31 December 1962. He currently lives in Algiers.   From 1953 to 1962 Mr Si Amer worked in Algeria – a French territory until 5 July 1962 – in a company incorporated under French law. He had voluntarily taken out supplementary insurance with the Caisse Interprofessionnelle de Prévoyance des Salariés (the Employees’ Inter-professional Insurance Fund (“the CIPS”)). During this period the CIPS received contributions paid by Mr Si Amer in due form.   On 16 December 1964 an agreement was signed between France and Algeria, which had become independent, regulating relations concerning supplementary pension schemes. Subsequently, an amendment to the French inter-professional agreement of 1961 on supplementary pensions imposed a criterion of residence in France or Monaco in order to have validated employment carried out in Algeria. In 1998 the applicant applied to the French fund for access to his rights to a supplementary pension. His application was dismissed on the ground that he did not meet the residence requirement. This refusal was confirmed in writing in June 1998 and February 2002.   Mr Si Amer brought proceedings against the CIPS before the Paris tribunal de grande instance , which dismissed his claims. The applicant argued that the so-called “residence” requirement amounted to a disguised nationality requirement. On 11 May 2005 the judgment was upheld by the appeal court, which considered that the residence requirement was not discriminatory, as it had been imposed on all employees who had worked in Algeria irrespective of their nationality.   The Court of Cassation dismissed Mr Si Amer’s appeal on points of law, stating that there were no arguable grounds of appeal.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 14 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Mr Si Amer complained that the dismissal of his claim for payment of the supplementary pension amounted to discrimination in the exercise of his property right.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 June 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Vladimirova Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges ,   and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court noted firstly that the applicant had a proprietary interest which came within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to a benefits scheme provided for by law, and that the Court was required to ensure that the criteria for awarding it had not been discriminatory.   On this point, the Court reiterated that a difference in treatment constituted discrimination if, without objective and reasonable criteria, it targeted persons in a relevantly similar situation.   The difference in treatment between persons in comparable professional situations who had contributed to a French supplementary pension fund while employed in Algeria prior to independence was clear, notably on the basis of whether or not they were subsequently resident in France. Nonetheless, the Court considered that that difference had had the legitimate aim, under the Franco-Algerian agreement of 16   December 1964, of ensuring effective rights for persons who had been repatriated to France and of dividing the burden of past situations with regard to supplementary pensions between Algeria and France, with a view to ensuring the financial stability of the scheme in this way.   Under the terms of the agreement, Mr Si Amer had a right to payment that was identical to his right prior to the independence of Algeria; in fact, the disputed difference in treatment concerned only the arrangements for implementing the supplementary scheme. As to the validity of his right, the French authorities had merely applied the Franco-Algerian agreement, which left it to the two States to define the level of benefits to be paid to the persons affiliated to their respective domestic institutions.   No shortcoming could therefore be attributed to the French State and the difference in treatment could not be regarded as discriminatory. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   *** This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   *** 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.