5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Strażów. 6.  The applicant is married and has a daughter. Prior to his application for pension he had been employed from 1980 until 31 March 2001 and paid his social security contributions to the State. 7.  On 5 April 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called EWK pension. 8.  Along with his application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning his daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 25 January 2001 The certificate stated that the child, born in 1995, had suffered from bronchial asthma and recurring infections and that she was in need of the parent’s constant care. 9.  On 19 April 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 April 2001 in the net amount of 1,068 Polish zlotys (PLN). 10.  On 8 May 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 29 May 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child in question could not be considered as ever having required such care. 11.  On 31 May 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions for the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”). 12.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early-retirement pension. He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights. 13. On 19 March 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from bronchial asthma and recurring infections she did not require her father’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her body functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of his right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as he did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care. 14.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment. 15.  On 23 October 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal. 16.  On 28 April 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant. 17.  Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return his early-retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of his right to the early-retirement pension. 18.  The applicant submitted that after the revocation of the pension until September 2004, when he took up employment, his situation was very difficult. He was unemployed without right to any benefit and the only income of the family was a disability pension of his wife. 19.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been employed, with short breaks, since September 2004. Moreover, by a decision of 22 August 2008 he had been granted an early retirement pension in the net amount of PLN 1,653. The applicant’s wife has been receiving a disability pension since 1988. 20.  In addition, the Government submitted information as regards various types of social benefits available in Poland. However, they have failed to specify which of those benefits, if any, were available in the applicant’s situation. 21.  Some 130 applications arising from a similar fact pattern have been brought to the Court. The majority of the applicants form the Association of Victims of the SSB (Stowarzyszenie Osób Poszkodowanych przez ZUS) (“the Association”), an organisation monitoring the practices of the Social Security Board in Poland, in particular in the Podkarpacki region. 22.  Out of all applications lodged with the Court, about twenty-four applicants decided not to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal given in their case. 23.  Hundred-and-four applicants lodged cassation appeals against the final judgments given in their cases. The Supreme Court entertained and dismissed on the merits fifteen appeals. In eighty-one applications the Supreme Court refused to entertain cassation appeals on the ground that they did not raise any important legal issue or make it necessary for the Supreme Court to give a new interpretation to legal provisions which raised serious doubts or caused ambiguity in the jurisprudence of the domestic courts. In the remaining eight cases cassation appeals were rejected for failure to comply with various procedural requirements.