CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 septembre 2023

.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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s2A7D9A9F { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFAB1F28D { width:53.25pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } .s3B71CE3B { width:44.03pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; display:inline-block } Published on 16 October 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 51173/19 A.-I.K. against Greece lodged on 19 September 2019 communicated on 27 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE From February 2008 to January 2012 the applicant was insured as a lawyer for his main pension at the Single Insurance Fund for Self-employed and for a supplementary pension at the Subsidiary Insurance Fund for Lawyers. He paid yearly contributions amounting to a total of EUR 1,014.60 for supplementary pension. In February 2012 he was admitted to the National School of Judges and he unsubscribed from these insurances due to his registration with another insurer. In 2014, following completion of the attendance of the School of Judges, his request to the Subsidiary Insurance Fund for Lawyers (i) to have the contributions paid to the Subsidiary Insurance Fund for Lawyers during 2008-2010 and in January 2012 reimbursed and (ii) to be exempted from the obligation to pay contributions for year 2011 was refused. He lodged an administrative recourse which was dismissed by judgment no. 3437/2019 of the Administrative Court of First Instance. According to the court, the fact that the applicant unsubscribed from those insurances did not render the amounts unduly paid and this irrespectively of whether the time ‑ span during which he had been insured and paid contributions would be taken into account for the award of supplementary pension. The judgment was not subject to appeal. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains about the refusal to have his contributions reimbursed.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, has that interference been in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Is the time-span during which he had been insured and paid contributions for supplementary pension as a lawyer taken into account in the award of supplementary pension?