5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Tyczyn. 6.  The applicant is married and has children. Until 27 January 2000 she had been employed and paid social security contributions to the State. On 1 March 2000 the applicant was granted the right to a disability pension for a period of one year, effective from 28 January 2000. 7.  On 29 January 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 son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 20 October 2000. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1991) suffered from bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis and faulty posture, and that he was in need of his parent’s constant care. 9.  On 14 February 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 January 2001 in the net amount of 433 Polish zlotys (PLN), together with a child benefit in the amount of PLN 240. The pension was twice reassessed and in June 2002 it amounted to PLN 487 net. 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 son required the permanent care of a parent. On 20 June 2002 the doctor stated, on the basis of the medical documents, that the child could not be considered as ever having required such care. 11.  On 17 July 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued as of 1 August 2002. 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 1989 Ordinance. 12.  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 original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights. 13.  On 4 March 2004 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court acknowledged that according to the medical expert appointed by the court the applicant’s son required constant care due to his chronic bronchial asthma. However, the applicant had discontinued her employment in January 2000 not in order to take care of her sick child but because she had been granted a disability pension. Consequently, 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 had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care. 14.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment. 15.  On 2 July 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal. 16.  On 14 December 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 her early-retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of her right to the early-retirement pension. 18.  The applicant submitted that after the withdrawal of the EWK pension she had been unemployed. She had not received unemployment benefit or any other benefits. In reply to the Government’s submissions, the applicant argued that her daughter, who indeed had been employed since 2006, lived in a separate household. 19.  The Government submitted that after the revocation of the EWK pension the applicant had been registered in the Regional Labour Office as an unemployed person. Subsequently, between 22 March 2005 and 29 February 2008, between 24 June 2008 and 30 June 2009 and as from 10 July 2009 onwards, the applicant had been receiving an agricultural disability pension. The total net amount of that pension paid until 31 August 2010 had been PLN 33,186 (approximately PLN 550 monthly). Moreover, the applicant and her husband owned a farm of 0.69 hectares. The applicant’s daughter, born in 1985, had been employed since 2006. 20.  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. 21.  Under the relevant laws currently in force, it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in 2020. 22.  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. 23.  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. 24.  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.