5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Niwiska. 6.  The applicant is married and has six children. Prior to his application for an early‑retirement pension he had been employed for twenty‑five years and had paid social security contributions to the State. 7.  On 5 October 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 31 August 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1988) suffered from neurofibromatosis and scoliosis and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care. 9.  On 8 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 October 2001 in the net amount of 1,100 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. The payments were resumed as of 1 November 2001 after the applicant resigned from his full‑time job. 11.  On an unspecified date 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 6 August 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care. 12.  On 26 September 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 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 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. 14. On 1 April 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence, including a medical expert opinion, that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from neurofibromatosis he did not require his father’s permanent care since his health condition did not significantly impair his bodily 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. 15.  The applicant further appealed against the first‑instance judgment. 16.  On 29 October 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal. 17.  On 17 March 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant. 18.  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 an early‑retirement pension. 19.  The applicant submitted that since the revocation of the EWK pension he remained unemployed until today. During this time he received no social or unemployment benefits. His wife was unemployed until 2007 and later found a temporary employment. Their eight‑year–old daughter inherited from her grandparents a small farm from which they derived no income. 20.  The Government submitted that the applicant did not take up any employment after terminating it on 31 October 2001. They submitted that his wife had been employed between January 2007 and 2009. The Government also maintained that some of their children worked and that their child born in 1992 owned a farm which could have been a source of income for the family. 21.  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. 22.  Under the relevant laws currently in force, it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in 2019. 23.  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. 24.  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. 25.  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.