CASE OF LEW v. POLAND
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
David Thór Björgvinsson;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
5. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Rzeszów. 6. The applicant is married and has children. Prior to her application for pension she was unemployed. 7. On 28 September 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 28 September 2001 The certificate stated that the child (born in 1989) had suffered from bronchial asthma and allergy and that he was in need of the parent’s constant care. 9. On 16 October 2001the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension as of 1 September 2001 in the net amount of 470 Polish zlotys (PLN). 10. On 3 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board requested 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 an unknown date the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care. 11. On 28 June 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 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. 13. On 27 November 2002 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the 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 and allergy he did not require his mother’s permanent care since his health condition did not significantly impair his body 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. 14. The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment. 15. On 21 May 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal. 16. On 19 February 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed 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 revocation of the pension she had not received any benefits or allowances. 19. The Government submitted that prior to her EWK pension the applicant was unemployed except for two months in 2001 when she had worked. After revocation of the pension she worked for two months in 2004. The Government submitted that from 2004 until 2006 the applicant collected sickness allowance and rehabilitation benefit without specifying the amount. Moreover, the applicant’s husband had been employed since 1999 without interruption. 20. In addition, the Government submitted information as regards various types of social benefits available in Poland. However, they failed to specify which of those benefits, if any, were available in the applicant’s situation. 21. Under the relevant laws applicable at present, it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in 2014. 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 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. 25. The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in the judgment of the case of Moskal v. Poland, no. 10373/05, § 31-34, 15 September 2009. 26. The re-opening of the proceedings concerning the early retirement pension is regulated in section 114 (1) of the Law of 17 December 1998 on retirement and disability pensions paid from the Social Insurance Fund (Ustawa o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) (“the 1998 Law”), which at the relevant time read as follows: “The right to benefits or the amount of benefits will be re-assessed upon application by the person concerned or, ex officio, if, after the validation of the decision concerning benefits, new evidence is submitted or circumstances which had existed before issuing the decision and which have an impact on the right to benefits or on their amount are discovered.” On 1 July 2004 a new subparagraph 114 (1) (a) was added, which reads as follows: “Section 1 shall apply respectively, if, after the validation of the decision it is discovered that the evidence that had been submitted did not give the right to a pension, disability pension or its amount.” 27. A party to civil proceedings could, at the material time, lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against a judicial decision of a second-instance court. A party had to be represented by an advocate or a legal adviser. 28. Article 3931 of the Code of Civil Procedure as applicable at that time listed the grounds on which a cassation appeal could be lodged. It read as follows: “The cassation appeal may be based on the following grounds: 1) a breach of substantive law as a result of its erroneous interpretation or wrongful application; 2) a breach of procedural provisions, if that defect could significantly affect the outcome of the case.” 29. Pursuant to Article 393¹³ the Supreme Court, having allowed a cassation appeal, could quash the challenged judgment in its entirety or in part and remit the case for re-examination. Where the Supreme Court failed to find non-conformity with the law, it dismissed the cassation appeal. According to Article 39315 if the cassation appeal was well-founded the Supreme Court could also amend the impugned judgment and adjudicate on merits. 30. On 22 June 1999 the Ombudsman made an application to the Constitutional Court, asking for section 186 (3) of the Law of 17 December 1998 on retirement and disability pensions paid from the Social Insurance Fund (Ustawa o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) (“the 1998 Law”) to be declared unconstitutional in so far as it restricted the application of the 1989 Ordinance to persons born before 1 January 1949. More specifically, the Ombudsman submitted that the introduction of an age-limit in respect of persons taking care of a child, which in essence amounted to a deprivation of the right to a benefit, constituted a violation of the principle of equality set forth in Article 32 § 1 of the Constitution. 31. On 4 January 2000 the Constitutional Court (K18/99) declared the impugned section 186 (3) of the 1998 Law unconstitutional in so far as it restricted the application of the 1989 Ordinance to persons born before 1 January 1949. The Constitutional Court reiterated among other things the constitutional principle of acquired rights which guarantees particularly strong protection for the right to receive social welfare benefits. 32. On 10 February 2011 the Ombudsman made an application to the Constitutional Court, asking for section 114 (1)(a) of the 1998 Law to be declared unconstitutional in so far as it allowed the SSB to reopen ex officio proceedings relating to the grant of a pension or a disability pension on the basis of a new assessment of evidence which had already been submitted. 33. On 28 February 2012 the Constitutional Court (K5/11) declared the impugned section 114 (1)(a) of the 1998 Law unconstitutional in so far as it allowed the SSB to reopen such proceedings following a new assessment of evidence which had already been submitted.