CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 12 février 1990

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                          Application No. 14128/88                                 by R.W.                             against Austria         The European Commission of Human rights sitting in private on 12 February 1990, the following members being present:         MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President            J.A. FROWEIN            E. BUSUTTIL            G. JÖRUNDSSON            A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            A. WEITZEL            J.-C. SOYER            H.G. SCHERMERS            H. DANELIUS            G. BATLINER            H. VANDENBERGHE       Mrs. G.H. THUNE       Sir   Basil HALL       MM.   F. MARTINEZ            C.L. ROZAKIS       Mrs. J. LIDDY       Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES         Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 1 July 1988 by R.W. against Austria and registered on 22 August 1988 under file No. 14128/88;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:         The applicant was born in 1930 in Sweden.   In 1956 she acquired the Austrian nationality by marriage in addition to the Swedish and is now living in Salzburg.   She is represented by Mr. G. Gressel and Partners, lawyers in Salzburg.         The applicant complains of the refusal by the Austrian social security authorities (Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten) to recognise the time she spent in high school and university in Sweden as qualifying period for the purpose of the calculation of her pension under the Austrian social security system.   Her action against this decision was dismissed by the Social Security Arbitration Court (Schiedsgericht der Sozialversicherung) on 11 July 1986.   The Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) confirmed this judgment on 20 October 1987 (served on 22 December 1987) insofar as the period spent in high school and university was in question.   The Supreme Court stated that the qualifying period had to be calculated by adding together the period during which the applicant was affiliated to the Austrian social security system and the time spent in Sweden which was considered as a qualifying period under Swedish law in accordance with the Agreement between Austria and Sweden relating to social security matters (AbkSozSiSchweden).   Article 19 (2) of the Agreement provided that qualifying periods were those during which a person had his/her normal place of residence in Sweden and had to pay income tax there. Therefore the time during which the applicant studied in Sweden could not be taken into account.   Furthermore, the applicant could not rely on the Austrian Social Security Act (ASVG) as the relevant provisions stipulated that only studies in domestic schools counted as a "substitute period".         The applicant invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in conjunction with Article 14 of the convention.   She points out that if her years of studying were taken into account, she would qualify earlier for an old-age pension and the amount of the pension would be higher.   She submits that the regulation in Sections 227 et seq. of the Austrian Social Security Act serves the purpose of preventing that persons who underwent extended educational training thereby suffer a loss of time qualifying for insurance benefits.   The non-recognition of her studies in Sweden is in her submission objectively unjustified and therefore discriminating.         However, Article 14 does not forbid every difference in treatment in the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised in the Convention and its additional Protocols.   The competent national authorities are frequently confronted with situations and problems which, on account of differences inherent therein, call for different legal solutions. There does not exist a uniform European social security system and therefore the transfer of social security rights or expectations from one State to another is usually regulated in bilateral treaties between the states are free to determine the extent and the conditions for the mutual recognition of social security rights.         The applicant's social security rights were determined on the basis of the Treaty existing between Austria and Sweden on these matters.   This Treaty refers to Swedish law insofar as pension rights or expectations acquired in Sweden are concerned.   The applicant has not alleged that the time she spend studying in Sweden would count for the purpose of the calculation of her pension under Swedish law.         Therefore, even assuming that the right to a social security pension is as such protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol, there is no appearance of a possible discrimination against the applicant in the enjoyment of this right.         It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE   Secretary to the Commission             President to the Commission         (H.C. KRÜGER)                                (C.A. NØRGAARD)