CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 30 juin 2020

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 241 June 2020 Popović and Others v. Serbia - 26944/13, 14616/16, 14619/16 et al. Judgment 30.6.2020 [Section IV] Article 14 Discrimination Alleged discrimination in provision of disability benefits to civilian as opposed to military beneficiaries: no violation Facts – The applications concern alleged discrimination by the respondent State in the provision of disability benefits. The applicants, civilian beneficiaries, maintain that they were awarded a lower amount than those classified as military beneficiaries, despite having exactly the same paraplegic disability. The applicants brought civil proceedings, but were ultimately unsuccessful, including before the Constitutional Court. Law – Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: In the specific context of the present case, the Court did not find it necessary to adopt a firm view on the question of whether the applicants (as disabled civilians) and disabled war veterans could be considered two groups in “analogous or relevantly similar situations” within the meaning of the Court’s case-law. In any event, the impugned difference in treatment had an objective and reasonable justification. What, according to the Government, essentially justified the difference in treatment was the way in which the two groups had sustained their injuries. Indeed, one group was comprised of war veterans who had suffered injuries during their military service, in the course of which, by the nature of things, they had been exposed to a higher level of risk whilst engaged in the performance of State-imposed duties. Their injuries would also, because of the said risk, be otherwise difficult to insure and it would likewise be onerous, if at all possible, for them to obtain, by means of litigation, any redress for the injuries caused to them by, for example, the agents of an opposing State engaged in military confrontation. The other group, however, was comprised of civilians, including the applicants, who had sustained their injuries in situations unrelated to the performance of such duties, mostly involving accidents or illnesses or the actions of third parties. The relevant difference in treatment had been a consequence of their distinct positions and the corresponding undertakings on the part of the respondent State to provide them with benefits to a greater or lesser extent. That included a moral debt that States might feel obliged to honour in response to the service provided by their war veterans. It also transpired from the respondent State’s legislation that disabled civilians lacking means might have been entitled to a number of benefits to which certain war veterans might not, and taking that into account, the real difference in treatment between the two groups might have been lesser than alleged. In the circumstances of the present cases, the choices made by the Serbian legislator as concerns the differential treatment in pecuniary social benefits between disabled civilians and disabled war veterans had not been not lacking a reasonable foundation and had been based on relevant and sufficient grounds. Lastly, as regards the Concluding Observations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the committee’s views, despite a detailed analysis of the situations in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, only identified potential issues in respect of the latter two countries and not Serbia, the respondent State in the present case. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to two).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes