5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Sedziszów Małopolski. 6.  The applicant is married with children. Prior to her application for an early-retirement pension she had been employed and paid social security contributions to the State. 7.  On 9 November 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 her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1992) suffered from bronchial asthma and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care. 9.  On 15 November 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 November 2001 in the net amount of 712 Polish zlotys (PLN). 10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. On 28 November 2001 the applicant resigned from her full-time job in a filter plant in Sedziszów. On 3 December 2001 the payment of the pension was resumed. 11.  On an unknown date the Rzeszów SSB 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. The doctor replied that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care. 12.  On 17 June 2002 the Rzeszów SSB issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of 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 grant 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”). 13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her 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 her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights. 14.  On 29 August 2002 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the SSB’s decisions and granted the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance. The court considered that the SSB should not have reopened the proceedings ex officio. The SSB appealed. 15.  On 10 April 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. 16.  On 14 October 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence, including expert medical evidence, that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from bronchial asthma she did not require her mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care. 17.  The applicant further appealed against this judgment. 18.  On 12 February 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. 19.  On 21 June 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant. The decision was served on the applicant on 16 September 2004. 20.  Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early-retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of her right to an early-retirement pension. 21.  The applicant submitted that her farm had not generated any profit. 22.  The Government submitted that after revocation of the EWK pension the applicant worked during the following periods: between 8 and 30 June 2005 and between 3 December 2007 and 26 January 2008. In addition, between 9 February and 8 August 2009 she had been receiving a scholarship during her training or internship. Also for some time in 2009 she was registered as an unemployed person. The applicant’s husband had been nearly continuously employed. Lastly the applicant owned 0.18 ha of agricultural land (after 1 December 2004 - 0,096 ha). 23.  In addition, the Government submitted information as regards the various types of social benefits available in Poland. However, they did not specify which of those benefits, if any, were available in the applicant’s situation. 24.  Under the relevant laws currently in force, it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in 2017. 25.  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. 26.  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. 27.  One 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 issues or require the Supreme Court to give a new interpretation to legal provisions which raised serious doubts or gave rise to 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.