5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Glinik Charzewski. 6.  The applicant is married and has children. Prior to her application for an early-retirement pension she had been employed and paid social security contributions to the State. 7.  On 16 February 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 on 6 February 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1995) suffered from bronchial asthma and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care. 9.  On 16 March 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 February 2001 in the net amount of 630 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 25 April 2001 the applicant resigned from her full-time job in a private company where she had been working since 1975. Afterwards, payment of the pension was resumed. 11.  On 17 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 22 May 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 22 May 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 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 23 January 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child 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. 15.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment. 16.  On 21 May 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal. 17.  On 15 January 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant. The judgment was notified to the applicant on 2 February 2004. 18.  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. 19.  The applicant submitted that after the revocation of the pension she had been unemployed until August 2007 without the right to obtain any social benefits. Afterwards she obtained definite duration employment contracts and between 4 October 2008 and 8 June 2009 she received unemployment benefit in the amount of PLN 662. 20.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been employed during the following periods: from 18 August 2007 until 29 March 2008, from 9 June 2008 until 20 September 2008, and from 8 June 2009 until 19 September 2009. Her salary amounted to PLN 5,300 in 2007, PLN 14,300 in 2008, and PLN 11,400 in 2009. In between those periods and after September 2009 the applicant was unemployed and did not receive any benefits. The applicant’s husband was employed, albeit not continuously, as for instance between April 2006 and October 2007 he had been jobless. The applicant and her husband own a small farm (1.45 hectares). 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 2020. 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.