CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 février 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 3 March 2025   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 32023/23 and 41266/23 Edmund GIERCZAK against Poland and Lech JEWTUSZKO against Poland lodged on 8 August 2023 and 6 November 2023 respectively communicated on 10 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present applications concern reduction of the applicants’ pensions. They raise issues similar to Cichopek and Others v.   Poland   ((dec.), nos.   15189/10 and 1,627 others, 14   May 2013) and Bieliński v.   Poland (no.   48762/19, 21 July 2022). In 2017, following the entry into force of the amendments of the Law of 18   February 1994 on old-age pensions of functionaries of the police, the Internal Security Agency, the Intelligence Agency, the Military Counter ‑ Intelligence Service, the Military Intelligence Service, the Central Anti ‑ Corruption Bureau, the Border Guard, the Government Protection Bureau, the State Fire Service, the Prison Service and their families ( ustawa o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym funkcjonariuszy Policji, Agencji Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego, Agencji Wywiadu, Służby Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego, Służby Wywiadu Wojskowego, Centralnego Biura Antykorupcyjnego, Straży Granicznej, Biura Ochrony Rządu, Państwowej Straży Pożarnej i Służby Więziennej oraz ich rodzin   – “the   1994   Act”), administrative decisions were issued recalculating the applicants’ pensions. The decisions were immediately enforceable. Upon appeal, the domestic courts upheld the administrative decisions finding that, since the applicants had served a totalitarian regime, their benefits should be lowered. The applicants lodged cassation appeals with the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal in application no. 32023/23 and refused to entertain the appeal in application no. 41266/23. In each case the panel of the Chamber of Labour and Social Insurance of the Supreme Court was composed of judges appointed to that court by the President of Poland pursuant to the recommendation (resolution no.   330/2018 of 28 August 2018) of the National Council of the Judiciary ( Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa , “the NCJ”) as established under the Amending Act on the NCJ and certain other statutes of 8   December 2017 ( ustawa o zmianie ustawy o Krajowej Radzie Sądownictwa oraz niektórych innych ustaw ; “the 2017 Act”). The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that the decrease of their pension constitutes a disproportionate interference with their acquired rights which, in turn, amounts to a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The applicants further complain that their cases were examined by judicial formations of the Chamber of Labour and Social Insurance of the Supreme Court, including newly appointed judges, which gave rise to a violation of their right to an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law”, in breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (referring to Advance Pharma sp.   z   o.o v.   Poland , no. 1469/20, 3 February 2022, which concerned the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the decrease of the applicants’ pensions amount to an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was the interference in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law? Did it put an excessive individual burden on the applicants?   2.     Was the panel of the Chamber of Labour and Social Insurance of the Supreme Court, which dealt with the applicants’ cases, an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the Court’s judgments in Advance Pharma sp.   z   o.o v.   Poland , no. 1469/20, §§   294-351, 3   February 2022, and Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v.   Iceland [GC], no.   26374/18, §§   205-90, 1   December   2020.