CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 13 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD86A583 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sDFE6704B { width:244.81pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBC21EA5 { width:240.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s26210B50 { width:238.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s327D2570 { width:214.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s681BE8C7 { width:183.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5C148630 { width:171.61pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sFA0E4E80 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3A891538 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s15BDF7F4 { font-family:Arial; color:#1f497d } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }       GRAND CHAMBER               CASE OF BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY   (Application no. 53080/13)                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   13 December 2016             This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Béláné Nagy v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President,   András Sajó,   Luis López Guerra,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Angelika Nußberger,   Julia Laffranque,   Päivi Hirvelä,   George Nicolaou,   Ledi Bianku,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Erik Møse,   André Potocki,   Paul Lemmens,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Branko Lubarda,   Síofra O’Leary, judges, and Søren Prebensen, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16 December 2015 and 10 October 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 53080/13) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Hungarian national, Ms Béláné Nagy (“the applicant”), on 12 August 2013. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr   A. Cech, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicant alleged that she had lost her means of support, guaranteed only by a disability allowance, as a result of legislative changes applied by the authorities without equity, in spite of the fact that there had been no improvement in her health. 4.     The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court). The Government were given notice of the application on 21 January 2014. On 10   February 2015 a Chamber composed of Işıl Karakaş, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, Helen Keller, Egidijus Kūris, Robert Spano, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and also of Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, delivered its judgment. It declared the application admissible and held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The joint dissenting opinion of Judges Keller, Spano and Kjølbro was annexed to the judgment. 5.     On 24 April 2015 the Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention. The panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 1 June 2015. 6.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24 of the Rules of Court. 7.     The applicant and the Government each filed a memorial (Rule   59   §   1) on the merits. In addition, third-party comments were received from the European Trade Union Confederation, which had been granted leave by the President of the Grand Chamber to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). 8.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 16 December 2015 (Rule 59 § 3). There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr   Z. Tallódi ,   Agent , Ms   M. Lévai ,   Adviser ; (b)     for the applicant Mr   A. Cech ,   Counsel , Mr   E. Látrányi , Mr   B. Várhalmy ,   Advisers .   The Court heard addresses by Mr Cech and Mr Tallódi, and replies by them and by Ms Lévai to questions put by the judges. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9.     The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Baktalórántháza. 10.     Between 1 May 1975 and 14 July 1997 the applicant was employed and made the statutory contributions to the social-security scheme. Subsequently, she was in receipt of unemployment benefit from 15   September 1997 until 9 September 1998. 11.     In response to a request lodged on 16 October 2001, the applicant was granted a disability pension ( rokkantsági nyugdíj ) later that same year on the basis of a retrospective finding that she had lost, as of 1 April 2001, 67% of her capacity to work on account of various ailments. This assessment was maintained in 2003, 2006 and 2007. 12.     As of 2008 the legislation on the methodology used to assess health impairment in occupational contexts changed. In application of the new methodology, the applicant’s disability was assessed by an expert at 40% on 1   December 2009. Without envisaging any procedure for rehabilitation, the assessment panel scheduled the next check-up of her medical status for 2012. 13.     The Government submitted that, under the new methodology, the applicant’s previous condition of 67% loss of working capacity would have corresponded to 54% overall health impairment. Since, however, she was found to have only 40% health impairment, her condition had to be deemed to have improved in the intervening period. The applicant submitted that the connection suggested by the Government between the scores of 67% in the old system and 54% in the new system was not based on any legal text. In her submission, her condition had not improved at all; the difference in scores was solely a consequence of changing the methodology used. 14.     As a consequence of the applicant’s newly assessed 40% level of disability, on 1   February 2010 the relevant pension insurance directorate withdrew her entitlement to the disability pension. The applicant appealed against that decision. On an unspecified date, the decision was upheld by the second-instance pension insurance authority. At the relevant time the monthly amount of the applicant’s disability pension was 60,975   Hungarian forints (HUF), approximately 200 euros (EUR). On 25 March 2010 the applicant brought an action before the Nyíregyháza Labour Court, challenging the administrative decision. 15.     The Nyíregyháza Labour Court heard the case, and appointed an expert with a view to obtaining an opinion as to the reasons for the difference in the scores. In an opinion of 16 February 2011, the expert submitted that the old score of 67%, as well as the new one of 40%, were correct under the respective methodologies; at any rate, the applicant’s condition had not significantly improved since 2007. 16.     Observing that the applicant had accumulated 23 years and 71 days of service time, the court retained the disability score of 40% and dismissed her action on 1   April 2011. The applicant was ordered to reimburse the amounts received after 1 February 2010. The court noted that the applicant’s next medical assessment was due in 2012. It drew her attention to the possibility of making a renewed application for disability pension should her health deteriorate. 17.     In 2011 the applicant requested another assessment of her disability. On 5 September 2011 the first-instance authority assessed it at 45%, scheduling the next assessment for September 2014. The second-instance authority changed this score to 50% on 13 December 2011, with a reassessment due in March 2015. Such a level would have entitled her to disability pension had rehabilitation not been possible. However, this time the assessment panel envisaged the applicant’s complex rehabilitation within a 36-month time-frame, and recommended that she be entitled to rehabilitation allowance ( rehabilitációs járadék ). Nevertheless, no such rehabilitation took place, and the applicant did not receive rehabilitation allowance. 18.     As of 1 January 2012, a new law on disability and related benefits (Act no.   CXCI of 2011) entered into force. It introduced additional eligibility criteria. In particular, instead of fulfilling a service period as required by the former legislation, the persons concerned had to have at least 1,095 days covered by social security in the five years preceding the submission of their requests. Individuals who did not meet this requirement could nevertheless qualify if they had no interruption of social cover exceeding 30 days throughout their careers, or if they were in receipt of a disability pension or rehabilitation allowance on 31 December 2011. 19.     On 20 February 2012 the applicant submitted another request for disability allowance ( rokkantsági ellátás ). Her condition was assessed in April 2012, leading to the finding of 50% disability. On 5   June 2012 her request was dismissed because she did not have the requisite period of social cover. Rehabilitation was not envisaged. The next assessment was scheduled for April 2014. 20.     Between 1 July and 7 August 2012 the applicant was employed by the Mayor’s Office in Baktalórántháza. 21.     On 15 August 2012 the applicant submitted a fresh request for disability pension under the new law. She underwent another assessment, during which her degree of disability was again established at 50%. Rehabilitation was not envisaged. 22.     In principle, such a level of disability would have entitled the applicant to a disability allowance under the new system. However, since her disability pension had been terminated in February 2010 (that is, she was not in receipt of a disability pension or a rehabilitation allowance on 31   December 2011) and, moreover, she had not accumulated the requisite number of days of social-security cover or demonstrated uninterrupted social cover, she was not eligible, under any title, for a disability allowance under the new system. Instead of the requisite 1,095 days covered by social security in the five preceding years, the applicant had been covered for   947   days. According to the Government, had the law not been so amended, the applicant would again have become eligible for a disability pension, since her health impairment was again assessed as exceeding the relevant threshold in 2012. 23.     The applicant’s request was refused by the relevant authority of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County on 23 November 2012 and, on appeal, by the National Rehabilitation and Social Welfare Authority on 27   February 2013. On 27 March 2013 the applicant filed an action with the Nyíregyháza Administrative and Labour Court, challenging these administrative decisions. On 20 June 2013 the court dismissed her case. This judgment was not subject to appeal. 24.     From 1 January 2014 the impugned legislative criteria were amended with a view to extending eligibility to those who have accumulated either 2,555 days of social-security cover over ten years or 3,650   days over fifteen years. However, the applicant does not meet these criteria either. 25.     In 2011 and 2012 the applicant received a monthly housing allowance from the local municipality, in the amount of HUF   4,100 (EUR   14) in 2011 and HUF 5,400 (EUR 18) in 2012. The applicant also applied for the basic welfare allowance ( rendszeres szociális segély ), but her request was denied because she did not meet the statutory requirements. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 26.     Act no. XX of 1949 on the Constitution, as in force at the relevant time and until 31   December 2011, contained the following provisions: Article 17 “The Republic of Hungary shall provide support for those in need through a wide range of social measures.” Article 54 (1) “In the Republic of Hungary everyone has the inherent right to life and to human dignity. No one shall be arbitrarily stripped of these rights.” Article 70/E “(1)     Citizens of the Republic of Hungary have the right to social security; they are entitled to the support required to live in old age, and in cases of sickness, disability, or being widowed or orphaned, and in the case of unemployment through no fault of their own. (2)     The Republic of Hungary shall implement the right to social support through the social-security system and the system of social institutions. (3) [1] The right to social support in respect of pension benefits applies to persons who have reached the statutory retirement age for old-age pension. Pension benefits may also be granted to persons below the aforementioned age by way of an act. Pension benefits provided before the statutory retirement age for an old-age pension may be reduced on the basis of statute, and may subsequently be provided in the form of social-welfare benefits, or may be terminated if the beneficiary is able to work.” 27.     Article XIX of the Fundamental Law, as in force since 1 January 2012, provides: “(1)     Hungary shall strive to provide social security to all of its citizens. Every Hungarian citizen shall be entitled to assistance in case of maternity, illness, disability, handicap, widowhood, orphanage and unemployment for reasons outside of his or her control, as provided for by statute. (2)     Hungary shall implement social security for the persons referred to in paragraph (1) and for other persons in need through a system of social institutions and measures. (3)     The nature and extent of social measures may as well be determined, in statute, in accordance with the usefulness to the community of the beneficiary’s activity. (4)     Hungary shall facilitate the ensuring of the livelihood of the elderly by maintaining a general state pension system based on social solidarity and by allowing for the operation of voluntarily established social institutions. The conditions of entitlement to state pension may as well be laid down in statute with regard to the requirement of stronger protection for women.” 28.     The relevant provisions of Act no. LXXXI of 1997 on Social-Security Pensions [2] , as in force until 31 December 2011, stated: Section 4 (1) (c) “[Under the terms of this law], disability pension [means]: pension to be disbursed in the event of disability, on condition that the requisite length of service has been accumulated.” Section 6 “(1)     The pensions that may be granted within the framework of the social-security pension system to the insured person in his or her own right are as follows: (a)     the old-age pension, (b)     the disability pension, ... (d)     the rehabilitation allowance, to be granted under a separate statute [3] .” Section 23 (1) “Disability pension shall be due to a person who: (a)     has suffered 67% loss of capacity to work due to health problems, physical or mental impairments, without any perspective of improvement over the coming year...; [and] (b)     has accumulated the necessary length of service [a function of age, as outlined in the law]; [and] (c)     does not work regularly or earns considerably less than he or she did prior to become disabled.” Section 24 (1) “The length of service necessary for the disability pension is as follows: ... at the age of 35 to 44 years: 10 years ...” Section 26 “(1)     The right to disability pension shall be effective as of the date on which the disability was found to be present, based on the opinion of the medical commission. If the medical commission did not take a stance about the point at which the disability began, the date to be taken in account shall be the date on which the disability pension was requested. (2)     If the claimant had not accumulated the necessary service period by the time set out in paragraph (1) above, eligibility for a disability pension shall be effective as of the day following the accumulation of the necessary length of service.” Section 29 “(1)     The amount of disability pension is dependent on the person’s age when he or she becomes disabled, the length of service accumulated prior to the granting of the disability pension and the degree of disability.” 29.     Concerning disability pensions to be granted after 31 December 2007, the same Act, as in force between 12 March and 31 December 2011, provided as follows: Section 36/A “(1)     Disability pension shall be due to a person who: (a)     has suffered [at least 79% loss of capacity to work, or between 50 and 79% loss of capacity if rehabilitation is not feasible], and (b)     accumulated the requisite length of service in respect of his or her age, and (c)     [does not have an income or earns considerably less than before], and (d)     does not receive sick pay or disability sick pay.” 30.     Act no. LXXXIV of 2007 on the Rehabilitation Allowance, as in force until 31 December 2011, provided as follows: Section 3 “(1)     The rehabilitation allowance shall be due to a ... person: (a)     who has suffered an impairment of health at a rate of 50 to 79 per cent and, in the context of that impairment... cannot ... continue to be employed without rehabilitation, and (aa)     who is not engaged in any gainful activity; or (ab)     whose monthly income is at least 30 per cent lower than [before] the impairment of health; [and] moreover (b)     whose condition is amenable to rehabilitation;, and (c)     who has accumulated the requisite service time in function of his or her age.” 31.     Act no. CXCI of 2011 on the Benefits Granted to Persons with Reduced Work Capacity, in so far as relevant and as in force between 26   July 2012 and 31 December 2013, provided as follows: Section 2 “A person whose health status has been found to be 60% or less following a complex assessment by the rehabilitation authority (henceforth: persons with reduced work capacity) and who: (a)     has been covered by social security for a minimum of 1,095 days under section   5 of [the Social Security Act] in the five years preceding the submission of his or her request, and (b)     is not engaged in any gainful activities and (c)     is not receiving any regular financial allowance shall be eligible for benefits granted to persons with reduced work capacity. (2)     By derogation from subsection (1) (a), persons ... (b)     who were in receipt of a disability pension ... or a rehabilitation allowance ... on 31   December 2011 shall be eligible for the benefits granted to persons with reduced work capacity irrespective of the duration of the period covered by social security. (3)     The 1,095-day insurance period shall include: ... (b)     periods of disbursement of a disability pension ..., or rehabilitation allowance...; ....” Section 3 “(1)     Subject to any rehabilitation proposal made by the rehabilitation authority in the framework of the complex reassessment, the allowance to be granted for a person with reduced work capacity shall be either: (a)     rehabilitation benefit, or (b)     disability benefit.” Section 4 “Persons with reduced work capacity who can be rehabilitated shall be entitled to rehabilitation benefit.” Section 5 “(1) Persons with reduced work capacity shall be entitled to disability benefit if rehabilitation is not recommended.” 32.     The Constitutional Court’s decision no. 1228/B/2010.AB of 7   June 2011 contains a sentence stating that “section 36/D (1) b) of the Social Security Pension Act had not created a [legitimate] expectation for those entitled to disability pension under the previous regulations” (compare and contrast with the wording of point 34 of the Constitutional Court decision quoted in the next paragraph). 33.     The Constitutional Court examined Act no. CXCI of 2011 in decision no. 40/2012. (XII.6.) AB, of 4 December 2012. The decision contains, inter alia , the following passages: “27.     ... From Articles 54 § 1 and 70/E of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court deduced only one individual social entitlement, specifically the right to a benefit that would ensure subsistence, that is, the provision by the State of basic subsistence to the extent that it is indispensable to secure the right to human dignity... [A subsequent decision of the Constitutional Court] amended the above principle with the proviso that ‘specific constitutional rights, such as a right to a dwelling, cannot be inferred from the obligation to provide basic subsistence’]... 30.     ...The Constitutional Court has already examined the amendments to the rules governing disability pension in several decisions. Decision no. 321/B/1996.AB characterised the disability pension partly as an allowance under protection of property and partly as a social service provision. As stated in the decision, the law ‘provides for a benefit under the constitutional principle of social security for individuals who, before reaching the old-age pension age, have lost their ability to work by reason of disability or as the result of an accident... Prior to the retirement age, the disability pension is an exceptional benefit granted to individuals on the ground of their disability. Upon reaching pensionable age, individuals who are ... incapable of work ... are no longer entitled to this exceptional benefit, because once their employment [period has] terminated they are eligible to receive old-age pension on the basis of their age.’... 31.     Decision no. 1129/B/2008.AB states that disability pension is one type of personal retirement benefit; however its ‘purchased right’ element is only represented inasmuch as ‘its sum is greater after a longer length of service, or is equal or close to the old-age pension. Otherwise, the principle of solidarity is predominant, since the disabled individual, who would not be eligible for an old-age pension on the basis of either his age or the length of service, receives a pension once his disability is determined.’ ... 32.     In the Constitutional Court’s interpretation, the entitlement to disability pension is not guaranteed constitutionally in an as-of-right manner; rather, it is a mixed social-security and social-service benefit, available under certain conditions to individuals below retirement age suffering from ill health, who, due to their disability, have a reduced capacity to work and are in need of financial assistance because of the loss of income.” ... 34.     ... [In decision no. 1228/B/2010.AB] ... the Constitutional Court held that the earlier rules on disability pension had not created a [legitimate] expectation, therefore the amendment to the conditions of entitlement had not violated any acquired right. 35.     Subsequent to the adoption of the above-mentioned decisions of the Constitutional Court, the text of the Constitution changed significantly. ... 37.     ... The fact that Article XIX of the Fundamental Law on social security concerns essentially State obligations and State objectives, rather than conferring rights [on individuals], represents an important change... 38.     The intention to change social policies became even more explicit by virtue of [an amendment to] Article 70/E ... of the Constitution, enacted on 6 June 2011, which expressly entitled the legislature to reduce, transform into a social allowance or terminate (where there is an ability to work) such pensions as disbursed [to persons in an age] under the age-limit for the old-age pension... 40.     ... From 1 January 2012 onwards, [the law] provides those with altered working capacity with a health-insurance benefit, rather than with a pension...” III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW AND OTHER MATERIAL 34.     The European Social Charter provides, as relevant: Article 12 – The right to social security “With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to social security, the Contracting Parties undertake: 1.     to establish or maintain a system of social security; 2.     to maintain the social- security system at a satisfactory level at least equal to that required for ratification of International Labour Convention No. 102 Concerning Minimum Standards of Social Security; 3.     to endeavour to raise progressively the system of social security to a higher level; 4.     to take steps, by the conclusion of appropriate bilateral and multilateral agreements, or by other means, and subject to the conditions laid down in such agreements, in order to ensure: a.     equal treatment with their own nationals of the nationals of other Contracting Parties in respect of social security rights, including the retention of benefits arising out of social security legislation, whatever movements the persons protected may undertake between the territories of the Contracting Parties; b.     the granting, maintenance and resumption of social security rights by such means as the accumulation of insurance or employment periods completed under the legislation of each of the Contracting Parties.” Article 15 – The right of physically or mentally disabled persons to vocational training, rehabilitation and social resettlement “With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right of the physically or mentally disabled to vocational training, rehabilitation and resettlement, the Contracting Parties undertake: 1.     to take adequate measures for the provision of training facilities, including, where necessary, specialised institutions, public or private; 2.     to take adequate measures for the placing of disabled persons in employment, such as specialised placing services, facilities for sheltered employment and measures to encourage employers to admit disabled persons to employment.” 35.     The European Social Charter (revised) provides, as relevant: Article 12 – The right to social security “With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to social security, the Parties undertake: 1.     to establish or maintain a system of social security; 2.     to maintain the social security system at a satisfactory level at least equal to that required for the ratification of the European Code of Social Security; 3.     to endeavour to raise progressively the system of social security to a higher level; 4.     to take steps, by the conclusion of appropriate bilateral and multilateral agreements or by other means, and subject to the conditions laid down in such agreements, in order to ensure: a.     equal treatment with their own nationals of the nationals of other Parties in respect of social security rights, including the retention of benefits arising out of social security legislation, whatever movements the persons protected may undertake between the territories of the Parties; b.     the granting, maintenance and resumption of social security rights by such means as the accumulation of insurance or employment periods completed under the legislation of each of the Parties.” Article 15 – The right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community “With a view to ensuring to persons with disabilities, irrespective of age and the nature and origin of their disabilities, the effective exercise of the right to independence, social integration and participation in the life of the community, the Parties undertake, in particular: 1.     to take the necessary measures to provide persons with disabilities with guidance, education and vocational training in the framework of general schemes wherever possible or, where this is not possible, through specialised bodies, public or private; 2.     to promote their access to employment through all measures tending to encourage employers to hire and keep in employment persons with disabilities in the ordinary working environment and to adjust the working conditions to the needs of the disabled or, where this is not possible by reason of the disability, by arranging for or creating sheltered employment according to the level of disability. In certain cases, such measures may require recourse to specialised placement and support services; 3.     to promote their full social integration and participation in the life of the community in particular through measures, including technical aids, aiming to overcome barriers to communication and mobility and enabling access to transport, housing, cultural activities and leisure.” 36.     Hungary has ratified both the European Social Charter and the Revised European Social Charter, on 7 August 1999 and 20   April 2009 respectively. At the time of depositing the instrument of ratification, Hungary made a declaration enumerating the provisions of the European Social Charter by which it considered itself bound. That list contained neither Article 12 nor Article 15. Subsequently, in 2004, Hungary declared itself bound by paragraph 1 of Article 12 and by Article 15. According to the declaration deposited with the instrument of ratification of the Revised European Social Charter, Hungary continues to consider itself bound, among other provisions, by paragraph 1 of Article 12 and by Article   15. 37.     The European Committee of Social Rights has “explicitly accepted alterations to social security systems in as far as such changes are necessary in order to ensure the maintenance of the social security system ... and where any restrictions do not deprive individuals of effective protection against social and [economic] risks without a tendency to gradually reduce the social security system to one of minimum assistance” (see Conclusions XIV-1, concerning Finland and Article 12 § 3 of the European Social Charter, p. 232, 30 March 1998). 38.     The European Code of Social Security, which entered into force on 17   March 1968 and is referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Revised European Social Charter, has been ratified by 21 Member States of the Council of Europe, not including Hungary. Sixteen of them accepted the obligations contained in Part IX thereof, which provides as follows: Part IX – Invalidity benefit Article 53 “Each Contracting Party for which this part of the Code is in force shall secure to the persons protected the provision of invalidity benefit in accordance with the following articles of this part.” Article 54 “The contingency covered shall include inability to engage in any gainful activity, to an extent prescribed, which inability is likely to be permanent or persists after the exhaustion of sickness benefit.” Article 55 “The persons protected shall comprise: a.     prescribed classes of employees, constituting not less than 50 per cent of all employees; or b.     prescribed classes of the economically active population, constituting not less than 20 per cent of all residents; or c.     all residents whose means during the contingency do not exceed limits prescribed in such a way as to comply with the requirements of Article 67.” Article 56 “The benefit shall be a periodical payment calculated as follows: a.     where classes of employees or classes of the economically active population are protected, in such a manner as to comply either with the requirements of Article 65 or with the requirements of Article 66; b.     where all residents whose means during the contingency do not exceed prescribed limits are protected, in such a manner as to comply with the requirements of Article 67.” Article 57 “1.     The benefit specified in Article 56 shall, in a contingency covered, be secured at least: a.     to a person protected who has completed, prior to the contingency, in accordance with prescribed rules, a qualifying period which may be 15 years of contribution or employment, or 10 years of residence; or b.     where, in principle, all economically active persons are protected, to a person protected who has completed a qualifying period of three years of contribution and in respect of whom, while he was of working age, the prescribed yearly average number of contributions has been paid. 2.     Where the benefit referred to in paragraph 1 of this article is conditional upon a minimum period of contribution or employment, a reduced benefit shall be secured at least: a.     to a person protected who has completed, prior to the contingency, in accordance with prescribed rules, a qualifying period of five years of contribution or employment; or b.     where, in principle, all economically active persons are protected, to a person protected who has completed a qualifying period of three years of contribution and in respect of whom, while he was of working age, half the yearly average number of contributions prescribed in accordance with paragraph 1.b of this article has been paid. 3.     The requirements of paragraph 1 of this article shall be deemed to be satisfied where a benefit calculated in conformity with the requirements of Part XI but at a percentage of ten points lower than shown in the Schedule appended to that part for the standard beneficiary concerned is secured at least to a person protected who has completed, in accordance with prescribed rules, five years of contribution, employment or residence. 4.     A proportional reduction of the percentage indicated in the Schedule appended to Part XI may be effected where the qualifying period for the pension corresponding to the reduced percentage exceeds five years of contribution or employment but is less than 15 years of contribution or employment; a reduced benefit shall be payable in conformity with paragraph 2 of this article.” Article 58 “The benefit specified in Articles 56 and 57 shall be granted throughout the contingency or until an old-age benefit becomes payable.” 39.     The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (promulgated in Hungary by Act no. XCII of 2007) contains the following provisions: Article 28 Adequate standard of living and social protection “1.     States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability. 2.     States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to social protection and to the enjoyment of that right without discrimination on the basis of disability, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right, including measures: ... (c)     To ensure access by persons with disabilities and their families living in situations of poverty to assistance from the State with disability-related expenses, including adequate training, counselling, financial assistance and respite care; ... (e)     To ensure equal access by persons with disabilities to retirement benefits and programmes.” 40.     Convention no. 102 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on Social Security (Minimum Standards), referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the European Social Charter, entered into force on 27   April 1955 and has so far been ratified by fifty-four countries, not including Hungary. Fifteen member States of the Council of Europe have ratified Part   IX of this instrument, which reads as follows: Part IX – Invalidity benefit Article 53 “Each Member for which this Part of this Convention is in force shall secure to the persons protected the provision of invalidity benefit in accordance with the following Articles of this Part.” Article 54 “The contingency covered shall include inability to engage in any gainful activity, to an extent prescribed, which inability is likely to be permanent or persists after the exhaustion of sickness benefit.” Article 55 “The persons protected shall comprise-- (a)     prescribed classes of employees, constituting not less than 50 per cent of all employees; or (b)     prescribed classes of the economically active population, constituting not less than 20 per cent of all residents; or (c)     all residents whose means during the contingency do not exceed limits prescribed in such a manner as to comply with the requirements of Article 67; or (d)     where a declaration made in virtue of Article 3 is in force, prescribed classes of employees, constituting not less than 50 per cent of all employees in industrial workplaces employing 20 persons or more.” Article 56 “The benefit shall be a periodical payment calculated as follows: (a)     where classes of employees or classes of the economically active population are protected, in such a manner as to comply either with the requirements of Article 65 or with the requirements of Article 66; (b)     where all residents whose means during the contingency do not exceed prescribed limits are protected, in such a manner as to comply with the requirements of Article 67.” Article 57 “1.     The benefit specified in Article 56 shall, in a contingency covered, be secured at least-- (a)     to a person protected who has completed, prior to the contingency, in accordance with prescribed rules, a qualifying period which may be 15 years of contribution or employment, or 10 years of residence; or (b)     where, in principle, all economically active persons are protected, to a person protected who has completed a qualifying period of three years of contribution and in respect of whom, while he was of working age, the prescribed yearly average number of contributions has been paid. 2.     Where the benefit referred to in paragraph 1 is conditional upon a minimum period of contribution or employment, a reduced benefit shall be secured at least-- (a)     to a person protected who has completed, prior to the contingency, in accordance with prescribed rules, a qualifying period of five years of contribution or employment; or (b)     where, in principle, all economically active persons are protected, to a person protected who has completed a qualifying period of three years of contribution and in respect of whom, while he was of working age, half the yearly average number of contributions prescribed in accordance with subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article has been paid. 3.     The requirements of paragraph 1 of this Article shall be deemed to be satisfied where a benefit calculated in conformity with the requirements of Part XI but at a percentage of ten points lower than shown in the Schedule appended to that Part for the standard beneficiary concerned is secured at least to a person protected who has completed, in accordance with prescribed rules, five years of contribution, employment or residence. 4.     A proportional reduction of the percentage indicated in the Schedule appended to Part XI may be effected where the qualifying period for the pension corresponding to the reduced percentage exceeds five years of contribution or employment but is less than 15 years of contribution or employment; a reduced pension shall be payable in conformity with paragraph 2 of this Article.” Article 58 “The benefit specified in Articles 56 and 57 shall be granted throughout the contingency or until an old-age benefit becomes payable.” 41.     Convention no. 128 of the ILO on Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors’ Benefits entered into force on 1 November 1969 and has so far been ratified by sixteen countries, not including Hungary, of which ten are member States of the Council of Europe. Of the latter, six have accepted the obligations contained in Part II of the Convention, which provides as follows: Part II – Invalidity benefit Article 7 “Each Member for which this Part of this Convention is in force shall secure to the persons protected the provision of invalidity benefit in accordance with the following Articles of this Part.” Article 8 “The contingency covered shall include incapacity to engage in any gainful activity, to an extent prescribed, which incapacity is likely to be permanent or persists after the termination of a prescribed period of temporary or initial incapacity.” Article 9 “1.     The persons protected shall comprise-- (a)     all employees, including apprentices; or (b)     prescribed classes of the economically active population, constituting not less than 75 per cent. of the whole economically active population; or (c)     all residents, or residents whose means during the contingency do not exceed limits prescribed in such a manner as to comply with the requirements of Article 28. 2.     Where a declaration made in virtue of Article 4 is in force, the persons protected shall comprise-- (a)     prescribed classes of employees, constituting not less than 25 per cent. of all employees; (b)     prescribed classes of employees in industrial undertakings, constituting not less than 50 per cent of all employees in industrial undertakings.” Article 10 “The invalidity benefit shall be a periodical payment calculated as follows: (a)     where employees or classes of the economically active population are protected, in such a manner as to comply either with the requirements of Article 26 or with the requirements of Article 27; (b)     where all residents or all residents whose means during the contingency do not exceed prescribed limits are protected, in such a manner as to comply with the requirements of Article 28.” Article 11 “1.     The benefit specified in Article 10 shall, in a contingency covered, be secured at least-- (a)     to a person protected who has completed, prior to the contingency, in accordance with prescribed rules, a qualifying period which may be 15 years of contribution or employment, or ten years of residence; or (b)     where, in principle, all economically active persons are protected, to a person protected who has completed, prior to the contingency, in accordance with prescribed rules, a qualifying period of three years of contribution and in respect of whom, while he was of working age, the prescribed yearly average number or yearly number of contributions has been paid. 2.     Where the invalidity benefit is conditional upon a minimum period of contribution, employment or residence, a reduced benefit shall be secured at least-- (a)     to a person protected who has completed, prior to the contingency, in accordance with prescribed rules, a qualifying period of five years of contribution, employment or residence; or (b)     where, in principle, all economically active persons are protected, to a person protected who has completed, prior to the contingency, in accordance with prescribed rules, a qualifying period of three years of contribution and in respect of whom, while he was of working age, half of the yearly average number or of the yearly number of contributions prescribed in accordance with subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article has been paid. 3.     The requirements of paragraph 1 of this Article shall be deemed to be satisfied where a benefit calculated in conformity with the requirements of Part V but at a percentage of ten points lower than shown in the Schedule appended to that Part for the standard beneficiary concerned is secured at least to a person protected who has completed, in accordance with prescribed rules, five years of contribution, employment or residence. 4.     A proportional reduction of the percentage indicated in the Schedule appended to Part V may be effected where the qualifying period for the benefit corresponding to the reduced percentage exceeds five years of contribution, employment or residence but is less than 15 years of contribution or employment or ten years of residence; a reduced benefit shall be payable in conformity with paragraph 2 of this Article. 5.     The requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall be deemed to be satisfied where a benefit calculated in conformity with the requirements of Part V is secured at least to a person protected who has completed, in accordance with prescribed rules, a qualifying period of contribution or employment which shall not be more than five years at a prescribed minimum age and may rise with advancing age to not more than a prescribed maximum number of years.” Article 12 “The benefit specified in Articles 10 and 11 shall be granted throughout the contingency or until an old-age benefit becomes payable.” Article 13 “1.     Each Member for which this Part of this Convention is in force shall, under prescribed conditions-- (a)     provide rehabilitation services which are designed to prepare a disabled person wherever possible for the resumption of his previous activity, or, if this is not possible, the most suitable alternative gainful activity, having regard to his aptitudes and capacity; and (b)     take measures to further the placement of disabled persons in suitable emp