CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 septembre 2005

.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. 78 September 2005 Goudswaard-Van der Lans v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 75255/01 Decision 22.9.2005 [Section III] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Changes in social-security legislation resulting in the reduction of benefits payable to existing beneficiaries: inadmissible   The applicant, a widow since 1977, was in receipt of a widow’s pension under a social-security law. In 1996, new legislation entered into force, which substantially reduced the applicant’s pension. The courts, whilst accepting that a “partial deprivation of the applicant’s possessions” had taken place, dismissed her appeals, finding that the new arrangements were in accordance with the criteria which stemmed from Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The Court proceeded on the basis that there had been an “interference” with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The lawfulness of the interference was not in dispute, and it was accepted that the aims pursued were legitimate. Concerning proportionality, the Court noted that the new legislation involved a reduction in disposable income of pension beneficiaries that had additional income in the form of other social benefits, or from paid employment, or were living in a common household with another person, which was the applicant’s case. The applicant argued that the reduction in her pension had been disproportionate, basing herself on the premise that her late husband had paid contributions under a compulsory insurance scheme and she could therefore expect to benefit, in the event of his death, until the age of 65. However, the Court could not accept the applicant’s suggestion that her pension entitlements, based as they were on contributions to a particular fund made specifically in order that she should benefit, should remain unaltered once they had been granted. There was no authority in its case-law for so categorical a statement. In actual fact, the Court had accepted the possibility of reductions in social-security entitlements in certain circumstances. The present case was distinguishable from Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland , where the Court found a violation of this provision, firstly, because the number of individuals whose pensions had been reduced was not limited, as in the former case. Secondly, because provision had been made to ease the effects of the new legislation on persons in the position of the applicant. And thirdly, and more importantly, because the original legislation had been conceived as a safeguard against poverty for persons who lacked basic maintenance from another socially acceptable source. The information available to the Court was insufficient to allow it to conclude that the applicant was in that position. In conclusion, the applicant had not been made to bear an “individual and excessive burden”, as had been the case in Kjartan Ásmundsson : 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