CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 4 May 2020 Published on 15 June 2020     THIRD SECTION Application no. 35788/19 Juan MONTERREAL SANCHEZ against Spain lodged on 24 June 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns judicial proceedings before the labour courts. The applicant had accessed early retirement benefits on 1 June 2010, after a collective dismissal from his company. The dismissal was declared null and he was reinstated in his position on September 2012 until 2 December 2013, when a new collective dismissal took place. The reinstatement had had no practical effect, because on that period the company had had no activity and the applicant had not received any salary. The applicant appealed against the decision of the National Social Security Institute requesting him the reimbursement of the retirement pension instalments received between 12 September 2012 and 2 December 2013, amounting to EUR 19,279.47. Domestic courts rejected his appeals. The National Social Security Institute started to apply a EUR 321.32 monthly deduction over his subsequent pension instalments.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the Spanish authorities deprive the applicant of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was the interference justified under this provision? (see, among others, Čakarević v.   Croatia , no.   48921/13, § 77-81, 26 April 2018).