CASE OF RUSZKOWSKA v. POLAND
No violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
5. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Biała Podlaska. 6. The applicant and her husband, G.K., had two children, D. and K. 7. In March 2002 they formed a foster family for two brothers, D.K. and R.K. On 11 August 2002 the Biała Podlaska District Court appointed her and her husband as the siblings’ official foster parents. 8. In January 2003 they fostered three more children, siblings A.C., M.C. and T.C. 9. In June 2004 the family fostered two other children, sisters A.M. and S.M. 10. The applicant and her husband took care of nine children altogether, two biological and seven fostered. 11. In December 2004 G.K. suddenly died. The applicant subsequently applied for dissolution of the foster family. She submitted that she could not cope with the task of running a foster home for nine children on her own. 12. On 31 January 2005 the Biała Podlaska District Court issued an interim care order placing A.C., M.C. and T.C. with another foster family, run by Mr and Mrs P. The applicant was still responsible for the two K. brothers and the two M. sisters as their foster mother. 13. On 11 August 2005 the Biała Podlaska District Court moved the K. brothers to another foster family, run by Mrs W. 14. In April 2007 the foster family formed by the applicant was dissolved in respect of the two M. sisters. 15. In January 2008 the applicant married C.R., who did not adopt the applicant’s biological sons D. and K. . The applicant remains their sole legal guardian. 16. The applicant’s late husband G.K. was covered by an insurance scheme run by the Farmers’ Social Security Fund (Kasa Rolniczego Upezpieczenia Spolecznego – “the Fund”). His children were entitled to a survivors’ pension (renta rodzinna) under the scheme. The total amount of the pension payable to survivors was to be divided into equal parts among all eligible individuals – in G.K.’s case, all his children, both biological and fostered. 17. In January 2005 the applicant applied to the Fund for the survivors’ pension in respect of all nine children. 18. On 18 February 2005 the Fund decided that the M. sisters were not eligible for the pension, as less than a year had passed between the applicant’s late husband becoming their foster father and his death. The Fund further established that the remaining seven children – the applicant’s biological children, the two K. brothers and the three C. siblings − would be entitled to a pension of PLN 525.70 in total per month. The applicant, as their legal guardian, was appointed beneficiary of the pension. 19. On 22 February 2005 Mrs P. requested that the Fund grant a pension in respect of the C. siblings, who had by that time become part of the foster family she ran with her husband (see paragraph 12 above). 20. On 1 March 2005 the Fund issued a new decision revising the amount of the pension to be paid. The applicant’s two biological children and the two K. brothers fostered by her would be entitled to a monthly allowance of PLN 349.60 between them, four-sevenths of the total amount. The three C. siblings being raised by the P. family would be entitled to a monthly allowance of PLN 262.20 between them, three-sevenths of the total amount. 21. The applicant appealed against the decisions delivered by the Fund. She requested that the court amend its decision of 1 March 2005 and declare that the only individuals eligible were her husband’s biological children. She argued that the children formerly in her foster care had been placed with other families who provided for them and that they should not therefore be entitled to the survivors’ pension in respect of her late husband. She was of the view that the contested decision put her children in a disadvantageous situation in comparison with the foster children. 22. On 15 November 2005 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, but on 7 February 2007 the Lublin Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the lower court for re-examination with the participation of the C. and K. siblings’ legal guardians. 23. On 16 May 2007 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal again. The court based its reasoning on the Farmers’ Social Insurance Act 1990 (Ustawa z 20 grudnia 1990 roku o ubezpieczeniu społecznym rolników – “the Act”). Under section 29 (2)(2) of that Act all children of the deceased, including foster children, were eligible for a survivors’ pension. Section 30 of the Act stated that all family members were eligible for a share of the pension, which was to be divided into equal parts, even where the eligible individuals were minors under the care of different guardians. The Regional Court stressed that the spirit of the Act was to treat all children equally in respect of the insurance benefits payable to them on the death of an insured person, irrespective of whether they were biological or foster children. The court found no grounds on which to quash or amend the contested decision. 24. On 18 December 2007 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal by the applicant on the same grounds as the first. The court fully concurred with the reasoning of the first-instance court. 25. On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy to complain about the decisions given in her case. She submitted that her biological children were being treated less favourably than the foster children in respect of their survivors’ pension. She received a response dated 14 February 2008. In that letter, the Director of the Family Benefits Department shared the applicant’s view that the legal provisions in force at that time were indeed unfavourable to biological children in situations where foster children had been moved to other families. The applicant was informed that the relevant legislative amendments were in progress. 26. According to the most recent relevant decision of the Fund, dated 14 June 2010, the total amount of the pension would from that date be divided into six parts, because T.C. had lost his entitlement having reached the age of majority. From that date onwards, the applicant’s biological children would receive two-sixths of the survivors’ pension. The remainder would be paid to the other children formerly in her and her late husband’s foster care. 27. The District Family Support Centre (PCPR) awarded the applicant the following amounts in financial support for the foster children: for D.K. from 7 March 2002 until 11 August 2005 – 26,308.30 PLN and an additional 6 630,80 PLN for personal care of the child; for R.K. from 7 March 2002 until 11 August 2005 – 26,308.30 PLN and an additional 6 630,80 PLN for personal care of the child; for T.C. from 1 February 2003 until 31 January 2005 – 15,562.00 PLN and an additional 3 890,40 PLN for personal care of the child; for M.C. from 1 February 2003 until 31 January 2005 – 15,562.00 PLN and an additional 3 890,40 PLN for personal care of the child; for A.C. from 1 February 2003 until 31 January 2005 – 15,562.00 PLN and an additional 3 890,40 PLN for personal care of the child; for A.M. from 14 June 2004 until 27 April 2007 – 22,248.06 PLN and an additional 4 557,00 PLN for personal care of the child; for S.M. from 14 June 2004 until 27 April 2007 – 22,248.06 PLN, and an additional 4,557.00 PLN for personal care of the child. 28. Mr and Mrs P., the C. siblings’ foster parents, received: for T.C. from 1 February 2005 until 31 July 2006 – 10,909.34 PLN and an additional 2,917.80 PLN for personal care of the child; for M.C. from 1 February 2005 until 28 July 2010 – 39,627.52 PLN and an additional 10,796.87 PLN for personal care of the child; for A.C. from 1 February 2005 until 28 July 2010 – 39,627.52 PLN and an additional 10,796.87 PLN for personal care of the child. 29. Mrs W., R.K. and D.K.’s foster mother, received: for D.K. from 12 August 2005 until 17 January 2011 – 39,025.39 PLN and an additional 10,504.40 PLN for personal care of the child; for R.K. from 12 August 2005 until 29 June 2009 – 28,285.83 PLN and an additional 7,539.80 PLN for personal care of the child. 30. Siblings T.C., M.C. and A.C. remained in Mr and Mrs P.’s foster family from 31 January 2005 until 26 June 2006 (T.C.) and 7 July 2010 (M.C. and A.C.). By a court decision of 26 June 2006, T.C. was placed in a Staterun children’s home. M.C. and A.C. remained with couple P.’s foster family until 7 July 2010 when the court restored their biological parents’ parental rights. M.C. and A.C. lived with them from that date onwards. 31. T.C. and M.C. stopped drawing their survivors’ pensions on 1 September 2009 and 1 November 2010 respectively. 32. Siblings R.K. and D.K. remained in Mrs W.’s foster family from 11 August 2005 until 29 June 2009 and 17 January 2011 respectively. That foster family ultimately ceased to exist because they had reached the age of majority. R.K. subsequently moved in with his biological mother. He stopped receiving his survivors’ pension on 1 August 2010. D.K. moved into college accommodation. 33. The applicant’s biological sons D.K. and K.K. were entitled to receive the survivors’ pension until 28 February 2012 and 31 July 2012 respectively. A.C. and D.K.’s entitlement expired on 31 August 2011.