CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 décembre 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 }   926 08.12.2009     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Wieczorek v. Poland (application no. 18176/05)     disability pension proceedings did not breach property rights but were unfair with regard to refusal of legal AID   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) No Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights       Principal facts   The applicant, Krzysztofa Wieczorek, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Cracow (Poland).   Ms Wieczorek received a disability pension from 1985 to 2000 when the Social Insurance Authority brought proceedings to reassess her medical condition in which it was decided that she was no longer entitled to such a pension on account of being unfit to work.   The Cracow Regional Court, by a judgment of 24   September 2002, partly amended that decision and granted the applicant a disability pension for a fixed period, namely from 1   January 2001 until 1 January 2003.   In September 2004 Ms Wieczorek’s appeal was dismissed – she claimed that in view of her condition she was entitled to a permanent disability pension. The Court of Appeal examined her complaint concerning the allegedly incorrect assessment of the evidence and concluded that the first-instance court had been thorough in its assessment. The court further observed that her pension had been maintained for the period from 1   January 2001 until 1   January 2003 and that, when that period had expired, the applicant had failed to submit a request to have her entitlement to the pension prolonged.   On 13 October 2004 the Court of Appeal considered legal assistance was unnecessary in Ms Wieczorek’s case and refused to grant her legal aid to lodge a cassation appeal.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Ms Wieczorek complained in particular that the refusal to grant her legal assistance in connection with the cassation proceedings had infringed her right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, she further complained that she had been deprived of a disability pension which she had been receiving for 15   years.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 April 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   In its refusal the Court of Appeal stated that the issue concerned in Ms Wieczorek’s case –whether her condition justified a disability pension – did not warrant professional legal assistance for the purposes of further appeal.   In response to Ms Wieczorek’s repeated argument that under the 1983 Ordinance the reassessment of her condition lacked any legal basis, the Court of Appeal had limited its reasoning to holding that the 1983 Ordinance was “of no relevance” to her case.   The issues related to the application of the 1983 Ordinance had nevertheless given rise to a considerable body of contradictory case-law by the domestic courts. In 2005 – after the applicant’s case had already been decided – the Supreme Court issued a resolution designated to address the discrepancies which had arisen in the interpretation of that Ordinance, in particular whether it prevented the Social Insurance Authority from revoking rights to a disability pension after a period of ten years. Under the applicable provisions it was open to the applicant to submit an appeal to the Supreme Court, based on an alleged breach of substantive law, and to challenge the manner in which the appellate court interpreted the provisions of the Ordinance in her case.   If legal representation was mandatory before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that legal assistance would be unnecessary, in particular in the absence of any analysis of whether the applicant’s appeal to the Supreme Court offered reasonable prospects of success, was not justified.   The domestic courts had therefore failed in their duty to give proper examination to the applicant’s request for legal assistance, in violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The revoking of Ms Wieczorek’s right to receive a disability pension had amounted to interference with her possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Despite the discrepancies between the judgments given by the courts in her case, their decisions had been based on the interpretation of the relevant domestic law; the interference with her possessions had thus been prescribed by law. And this interference had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the financial stability of the social insurance system.   Entitlement to a disability pension was based essentially on the claimant’s inability to continue paid employment on grounds of ill-health. The initial medical condition could improve or deteriorate over time and the Court could not accept Ms Wieczorek’s suggestion that her pension entitlements – based on contributions to the general fund from which all social insurance benefits were paid – should remain unaltered once they had been granted, regardless of any changes in her condition.   States could take measures to reassess the medical condition of those receiving disability pensions to establish whether they were still unfit to work. Maintaining such pensions when those entitled ceased to comply with the legal requirements would result in their unjust enrichment and would be unfair to contributors to the social insurance system.   The Court also observed that the decisions of the Social Insurance Authority had been subjected to judicial review. In addition, Ms Wieczorek had not been totally divested of her only means of subsistence, as she had been granted a two-year pension and she had not been obliged to pay back any amounts received by her prior to the date when she was found to no longer meet the applicable legal requirements.   The Court concluded that a fair balance had been struck between the general interest of the public and the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights and that the burden on the applicant had not been disproportionate or excessive. Therefore, there had been no violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   Article 41 (just satisfaction)   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant 2,000 euros for non pecuniary damage. *** (The judgment is available only in English). 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.