EIT:n suuri jaosto arvioi eläkkeen maksun keskeyttämistä lainmuutoksen johdosta
Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen (EIT) suuri jaosto on tänään antamassaan tuomiossa arvioinut omaisuuden suojaa ja syrjinnän kieltoa tilanteessa, jossa valittaja oli jäänyt ennenaikaiselle eläkkeelle, mutta jatkanut työntekoa ensin yksityisellä ja sitten julkisella sektorilla. Lainmuutoksen jälkeen vuonna 2013 hänen eläkkeenmaksunsa keskeytettiin, koska hän tuolloin työskenteli julkisella sektorilla. EIT katsoi, ettei omaisuuden suojaa ollut loukattu myöskään arvioitaessa tilannetta syrjinnän kiellon kanssa, vaikka yksityisellä sektorilla työskennellessään valittajan eläkkeenmaksua ei olisi keskeytetty.EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:
The case Fábián v. Hungary (application no. 78117/13) concerned the suspension of Mr Fábián’s oldage pension on the grounds that he continued to be employed in the public sector.
In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case the European Court of Human Rights held:
- unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights,
- unanimously, that the complaint relating to an allegedly unjustified difference in treatment between pensioners employed in different categories within the public sector had been introduced out of time and was therefore inadmissible,
- by 11 votes to six, that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as concerned Mr Fábián’s complaint about the difference in treatment with pensioners working in the private sector.
The Court found in particular that a fair balance had been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the fundamental rights of Mr Fábián, who had not been made to bear an excessive individual burden.
The Court observed that the Contracting States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation with regard to the funding methods of public pension schemes, and noted that the interference in question had pursued an aim in the general interest, namely protecting the public purse and ensuring the longterm sustainability of the Hungarian pension system.
The Court also noted that the suspension of disbursement of Mr Fábián’s pension had been temporary. Furthermore, he had been able to choose between discontinuing his employment in the civil service and continuing to receive his pension, or remaining in that employment and having his pension payments suspended, and had opted for the latter. Moreover, Mr Fábián had not been left without any means of subsistence as he had continued to receive his salary.
The Court also found that Mr Fábián had not demonstrated that, as a member of the civil service whose employment, remuneration and social benefits were dependent on the State budget, he had been in a relevantly similar situation to pensioners employed in the private sector, whose salaries were funded through private budgets outside the State’s direct control.
Koko lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: here