Žegarac and others against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is9. published the decision in the case in February 2023 Žegarac and 10 others against Serbia, number 54805/15.
It's a decisionpassed unanimouslyL o The evening from the7 judgea.
The case originally related to the complaints of 11 applicants that their old-age pension payments were reduced from November 2014 to September 2018. The reduction followedbasedLaw on temporary regulation of pension payment methods ("Official Gazette of RS", no. 116/14 and 99/16) which was adopted as part of the implementation of comprehensive savings measures, with the aim of reducing the budget deficit and preserving the financial stability of the pension system. This law was repealed when it was judged that the public debt had been sufficiently reduced. In its decision, the court decided to declare 8 petitions inadmissible. This is because, first of all, he determined that the reduction in pension payments was:a) limited to recipients of the highest pensions;b) temporary - it lasted a little less than four years;c) part of efforts to balance the state budget. Therefore, the Court assessed that the authorities established a fair balance between ensuring the financial stability of the pension system - which was in the general interest of the public - and protecting the property rights of the applicants. He also decided to delete the remaining 3 applications from his list of cases, because in one case the applicant did not submit a response to the Court on the Observations of the Republic of Serbia, while in the remaining two cases the applicants died, and their heirs did not submit a request for the continuation of the proceedings before the Court. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
The applicants (hereinafter: the applicants) are 11 citizens of the Republic of Serbia who live in Belgrade, Zavlaka or Požarevac and are beneficiaries of the state pension system.
In 2014, the long-term deficit in the country's pension system reached a historical maximum. The authorities have therefore decided that austerity measures are necessary to reduce the deficit and ensure the financial stability of the pension system.
One of those measures included a temporary reduction in the amounts paid to beneficiaries of state pensions. Thus, on October 26, 2014, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia adopted the Law on Temporary Regulation of Pension Payments ("Official Gazette of RS", no. 116/14 and 99/16), which entered into force on October 28, 2014.
Recipients of higher pensions, such as applicants, were affected by the reduction, while those receiving pensions that do not exceed 25,000 dinars (about 200 euros) were exempted.
For example, three applicants lost between 35 and 133 euros per month from their pension in the period from November 2014 - when the law began to be applied - to September 2018 - when the law was repealed due to a reduction in public spending (savings of about 840 million euros).
The applicants initiated various procedures within the national legal system dissatisfied with the reduction of pensions (they filed civil or administrative lawsuits and/or constitutional appeals), however, none of them ended in their favor.
Specifically, in September 2015, the Constitutional Court rejected the requests of 10 applicants and other individuals and refused to initiate the procedure for the constitutionality assessment of this Law. The Constitutional Court stated, among other things, that the reduction of pension payments was based on the Law, that it was not contrary to the Constitution or international treaties ratified by Serbia, that it was justified due to the public interest in ensuring the financial stability of the pension system and that it could be considered proportionate , taking into account a number of factors including social solidarity, the short duration of the measure and the fact that the applicants were not forced to bear an excessive burden.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicants submitted petitions to the Court between 2015 and 2020.
All applicants pointed out before the Court the alleged violation of rights from Article 1 of Protocol no 1 with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), considering that the reduction of their pensions represented an unfounded interference with their right to peaceful enjoyment of property.
The second, third and eleventh applicants also pointed out the alleged violation from Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to property) and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention (general prohibition of discrimination), considering that they were discriminated against and treated differently compared to other pensioners to whom the pension reduction did not apply.
DECISION OF THE COURT
The Court decided to delete 3 petitions from its list of cases, because it did not receive any response from the fourth petitioner after the Government submitted written Observations and because after the death of the fifth and eighth petitioners, their heirs did not request to continue the proceedings before the Court.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The court first found that the right to a pension is a property interest in the sense of Article 1 of the Protocol number 1 to the Convention, as well as that the temporary reduction of pensions introduced by law leads to interference by the respondent state in the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of property.
After evaluating the presented evidence and allegations presented by the applicants and the defendant Republic of Serbia, the Court found the following:
- that the interference with the applicants' right to property was legal because it was based on the Law on Temporary Regulation of the Payment of Pensions, and that the Constitutional Court found that the provisions of the aforementioned law are in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia;
- that the interference with the property rights of the applicants was done for the purpose of protecting legitimate interests - reducing budget costs and preserving the financial stability of the pension system;
- that the temporary reduction of pensions for those whose pension exceeds the amount of 25,000.00 dinars and the larger reduction for those whose pension exceeds the amount of 40,000.00 dinars does not represent an unreasonable and disproportionate state measure. More precisely, the Court found that none of the applicants proved that due to the temporary reduction of pensions, they were put at a real risk of not having the basic means of living, nor did their living conditions deteriorate to the extent that threatens the minimum standard of living.
In the explanation of the decision, the court indicated that its role is not to assess whether the Law on temporary regulation of pension payment methods is the best solution to the problem of large budget expenditures, but that it is the domestic legislator who has remained within the scope of his field of free assessment.
In accordance with everything stated, the Court rejected the applicants' complaints regarding the violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property from Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as clearly unfounded.
Article 14 in connection with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. i/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 12
When it comes to the complaints of the second, third and eleventh applicants due to alleged discrimination, the Court found that the decision on the threshold amount of 25,000 dinars did not mean that one category of pensioners was in a less favorable position than the others, but that it contributed to a careful balancing act and at the same time reflected the principles of solidarity and social justice.
Therefore, he concluded that these complaints were also clearly unfounded and dismissed them.