CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 février 2010

.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 } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s27210F8D { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .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 } 082 02.02.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Aizpurua Ortiz and Others v. Spain (no. 42430/05)     NO BREACH OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE SUPREME COURT’S VALIDATION OF A NEW COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ALTERING A SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT PENSION SCHEME     No violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicants are Magdaleno Aizpurua Ortiz and 55 other Spanish nationals who live or used to live in the province of Vizcaya (Spain). They were employed by the company Sefanitro S.A. (“the company”) until they took early retirement, at which point they received a supplementary pension under the terms of a collective agreement concluded in 1983. Under the agreement, former staff members who had commenced employment with the company before 1984 received a supplementary annual pension up to the age of 65.   When the payments stopped in 1994 the applicants brought actions before the courts, which found in their favour.   The 1983 agreement was repealed by a new collective agreement which entered into force in 2000 and under the terms of which employees who had been in receipt of a supplementary pension were to be paid a one-off sum equivalent to three monthly payments.   The applicants applied to the employment tribunal, which found partly in their favour and ordered the company to pay the pensions claimed. Following an appeal by the company, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ claims, noting in particular that, unless otherwise provided, the rights conferred by an earlier collective agreement could cease to apply if they were revised by a subsequent collective agreement.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complained that they had been deprived of their supplementary pension rights on the basis of a collective agreement concluded between the company and representatives of the active workforce, who were not entitled to represent them or defend their interests.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 November 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President, Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Ann Power (Ireland), Judges, and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Admissibility   Applicants’ locus standi   Nine of the applicants had died before the application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on their behalf. The Court rejected the application in respect of those applicants, either because their lawyer had lodged the application on their behalf after their death (whereas, according to Article 34, applications could only be lodged by living persons or on their behalf) or because a close relative, spouse or heir had not expressed a wish to pursue the application within the time-limit of six months following the final decision of the Spanish courts (Article 35).   The application was struck out of the list of cases under Article 37 § 1 in respect of four applicants, as the lawyer had not produced a duly signed power of attorney for the proceedings before the Court. In the case of 12 applicants who died after the application had been lodged, on the other hand, a written power of attorney signed by a close relative, spouse or heir had been provided and the Court was therefore able to examine the case in respect of those applicants.   Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   In previous cases the Court had ruled that the right to a pension based on employment could in some circumstances be assimilated to a property right, in particular where an employer had given a more general undertaking to pay a pension on conditions that could be considered to be part of the employment contract.   In the instant case the applicants’ right to a supplementary pension had been recognised under a collective agreement, and they had actually received the pension until the payments had been stopped by the company. Bearing in mind also the steps taken by the applicants, the Court considered that the latter had had a legitimate expectation of continuing to receive payment, and that the right to a supplementary pension constituted an asset falling within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Merits of the case   The State’s obligation under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to take the necessary measures to protect the right of property – even in the context of disputes between private individuals – did not extend to assuming the commitments of a company no longer in a position to pay a pension to its former employees.   In the present case the Supreme Court had validated the agreement in question by means of a final ruling, after hearing evidence from the parties and on the basis of established case-law, making the point that the Spanish legislature had opted for a system in which freedom of collective bargaining took precedence over undertakings secured under earlier collective agreements.   The Supreme Court had further observed that the later collective agreement had not done away with the rights recognised by the first agreement, but had replaced them with payment of a lump sum, and that the change had been made in the context of the company’s financial difficulties.   The Court considered that the impugned interference with the applicants’ right to property had pursued an aim in the general interest, namely to secure the finances of the company and its creditors and to protect employment and the right to collective bargaining. It could find no evidence either that the applicants had been discriminated against compared with the company’s active workforce.   It was not for the Court to take the place of the national courts and examine the interpretation of Spanish legislation by the Supreme Court (or to rule on the compatibility of domestic law with Community law). The Court saw nothing to indicate that the Supreme Court’s decision had been arbitrary or had imposed a disproportionate burden on the applicants.   Accordingly, mindful also of the discretion enjoyed by States in shaping social and economic policy, the Court concluded that the Supreme Court judgment complained of had not amounted to disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. ***   The judgment is available only in French. 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) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.