CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 janvier 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 148 January 2012 Torri and Others v. Italy (dec.) - 11838/07 Decision 24.1.2012 [Section II] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Reduction of applicants’ pensions due to changes in their pension scheme: inadmissible   Facts – The applicants were civil servants employed by a public entity and paying old-age pension contributions into the primary Italian pension fund. In December 1992 the entity they had been working for was dissolved by statute and they acquired a right to “end-of-service” payments or the possibility of new employment with another civil service at a reduced salary. As regards their pension contributions, the applicants had several options, including combining the payments they had previously paid with their contributions to their new employment pension fund. They chose this course in the belief that, in line with the case-law as it then stood, they would be repaid any payment in excess which did not go towards the calculation of their pensions. However, that practice eventually changed and such repayments were limited only to persons who had left the civil service before a certain date for which the applicants did not qualify owing to their new employment. The applicants then sued for the excess but their claims failed when the Supreme Administrative Court ( Consiglio di Stato ) changed its previous case-law. Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: In so far as the applicants complained about the national courts’ interpretation of the domestic law, the Court noted that it had not been arbitrary and recalled that a reversal of jurisprudence fell within the discretionary powers of the domestic courts. The law at issue clearly stated that the refund of contributions applied only to a certain category of persons, which did not include the applicants. Furthermore, in so far as the applicants complained about a disproportionate interference with their possessions, the Court observed that their right to derive benefits from the social-insurance scheme had not been infringed to the extent that the essence of their pension right was impaired. The applicants had not suffered a total deprivation of their pension entitlements and indeed had failed to submit appropriate numerical details showing the extent to which their pensions would be reduced. Given the State’s wide margin of appreciation in regulating the pension system and the legitimate aim pursued – namely, the principle of solidarity – the applicants had not been made to bear an excessive individual burden. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1: The applicants were treated differently to those who had received back their contributions prior to the change in the domestic courts’ case-law. However, given that such a change was legitimate, its effects and the apparent difference in treatment fell within the State’s wide margin of appreciation and could therefore be considered objectively justified. In any event, the applicants could not claim to be in an analogous situation to their former colleagues who had chosen not to take up the new employment but to retire instead. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © 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