SECOND SECTION DECISION

Transcription

1 SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no /12 Ferenc BÁBIK and others against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 May 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Peer Lorenzen, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 May 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented before the Court by Mr A. Cech, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants are all active members of various law-enforcement agencies. Under the rules which were in force when the applicants took up duties, they were entitled to retire after 25 years of service, irrespective of their age, or at the latest five year earlier than the generally valid age-limit

2 2 BÁBIK AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY DECISION for old-age pension. These advantages were available in the form of a service pension (szolgálati nyugdíj). As of 1 January 2012, the service pension as such was abolished by a legislative amendment (Act no. CLXVII of 2011). In its stead, a so-called service allowance (szolgálati járandóság) was instituted, with different amounts and conditions. In particular, the five-year age benefit is no longer applicable in cases like that of the applicants, and moreover, no special pension or allowance is available merely as a consequence of a 25-year long service. Furthermore, a one-time benefit of two months salary due on retirement was also removed. In other words, under the new scheme the applicants pension entitlement has become largely identical to that of the general population, despite the expectations they had when entering the service. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the abolition of the service pension constituted an unjustified interference with their legitimate expectation of a more advantageous pension. They also complained under Articles 6 1 and 13 of the Convention that there was no access to a court or an effective remedy in order to challenge this measure, originating in a legislative act. THE LAW 1. The applicants complained that the rules of service allowance, as opposed to those of service pension, amount to an unjustified interference with their property rights, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which provides as follows Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. They submitted in particular that the expectation that they would be able to retire under the special conditions attached to the service pension

3 BÁBIK AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY DECISION 3 constituted a legitimate expectation for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, now frustrated by the new rules. The Court observes that the applicants are still in active service, and their complaints concern the nature and the amount of their future Statesponsored pensions and the age-limit by which those entitlements will become available to them. Therefore the impugned legislative amendments concern no more than the situation of the applicants if and when they will retire. It follows that this part of the application is premature and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 1 and 4 of the Convention. 2. The applicant also submitted that there was no access to a court or an effective remedy to challenge this measure. They rely on Articles 6 1 and 13 of the Convention. As to Article 6 1, the Court observes that there was no dispute in this case to attract the application of the civil limb of Article 6 1. This part of the application is therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 4 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court recalls that the Convention organs have consistently held that it cannot be deduced from Article 13 that there must be a remedy against legislation as such which is considered not to be in conformity with the Convention. Such a remedy would in effect amount to some sort of judicial review of legislation because any other review generally sufficient for Article 13 which requires only a remedy before a national authority could hardly be effective concerning legislation (see Xenodochiaki S.A. v. Greece (dec.), no /99, 15 November 2001; Greek Federation of Customs Officers, Nicolaos Gialouris, Georgios Christopoulos and 3,333 other Customs Officers v. Greece (dec.), no /94, Commission decision of 6 April 1995, Decisions and Reports 81, p. 123). It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Stanley Naismith Registrar Guido Raimondi President

4 4 BÁBIK AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY DECISION APPENDIX LIST OF APPLICANTS 1. Ferenc BÁBIK is a Hungarian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Letkés. 2. Bálint BALÁTI is a Hungarian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Nagymaros. 3. Péter BENYE is a Hungarian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vác. 4. Zoltán BEZECZKY is a Hungarian national who was born in 1963 and 5. Robert BURIK is a Hungarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Márianosztra. 6. Annamária DEMES is a Hungarian national who was born in 1975 and 7. Péter DÉNES is a Hungarian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Márianosztra. 8. Péter DÓBIÁS is a Hungarian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Szob. 9. Eszter DORFINGER is a Hungarian national who was born in 1988 and lives in Levél. 10. Katalin DROBINOHÁNÉ KLAGYIVIK is a Hungarian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Letkés. 11. Renáta Borbála EGYÜDNÉ NÉMEDI is a Hungarian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Szob. 12. Attila FARKAS is a Hungarian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Abádszalók. 13. Balázs FIDEL is a Hungarian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Szob. 14. István FORGÁCS is a Hungarian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Kemence. 15. Anita GÉRESINÉ FEHÉR is a Hungarian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Püspökladány. 16. Attila GOLOB is a Hungarian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Budapest. 17. Péter GYŐRIK is a Hungarian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Kemence. 18. Sándor HANGYÁSI is a Hungarian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Budapest. 19. László HEGEDÜS is a Hungarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Ipolytölgyes.

5 BÁBIK AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY DECISION Zoltán HELLNER is a Hungarian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Vámosmikola. 21. Péter HORVÁTH is a Hungarian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Ipolydamásd. 22. Zsuzsanna HORVÁTHNE BERECZKI is a Hungarian national who was born in 1975 and 23. Gábor IMREY is a Hungarian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Budapest. 24. László KIÁCZ is a Hungarian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Márianosztra. 25. Róbert KISS is a Hungarian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vámosmikola. 26. Tibor KLEIN is a Hungarian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Kóspallag. 27. Gergő KORMANIK is a Hungarian national who was born in 1976 and 28. Nikoletta KRÁL is a Hungarian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Szob. 29. Tamás LASSU is a Hungarian national who was born in 198 and lives in Váchartyán. 30. János MACHLIK is a Hungarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Békéscsaba. 31. Lajos MARKOVICS is a Hungarian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Szob. 32. László MÉSZÁROS is a Hungarian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Bugyi. 33. Gábor MOLNÁR is a Hungarian national who was born in 1979 and 34. László MOLNÁR is a Hungarian national who was born in 1974 and 35. Viktor NAGY is a Hungarian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Nagybörzsöny. 36. Georgina NÉMEDI is a Hungarian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Budapest. 37. Ferenc OROSZ is a Hungarian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Dunakeszi. 38. János ORSIK is a Hungarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Nagybörzsöny. 39. Zsolt REKLI is a Hungarian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Szob. 40. László SZABÓ is a Hungarian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Bugyi. 41. Zoltán SZABÓ is a Hungarian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Szob.

6 6 BÁBIK AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY DECISION 42. Ákos SZAKÁL is a Hungarian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Győr. 43. István SZARVAS is a Hungarian national who was born in 1979 and 44. László TAKÁCS is a Hungarian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Budapest. 45. András TAMÁS is a Hungarian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Mogyoród. 46. Károly TÉZLI is a Hungarian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Budapest. 47. Beatrix TOMÁN is a Hungarian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Letkés. 48. László TÓTH is a Hungarian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Nagykőrös. 49. Tamás András TÚRÓCZI is a Hungarian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Dunakeszi. 50. Vilmos Dávidné VAS is a Hungarian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Vác. 51. Árpád VERES is a Hungarian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Vámosmikola.