OSTROWSKA v. POLAND
Inadmissible
David Thór Björgvinsson;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
1. The applicant, Ms Henryka Ostrowska, is a Polish national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Mielec. 2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 11 July 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) (“SSB”) 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. 5. On 1 August 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension in the net amount of 521 Polish zlotys (PLN). 6. On 30 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 1989 Ordinance. 7. The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. 8. On 3 December 2003 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. 9. The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment. 10. On 19 May 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal. This decision was served on the applicant on 22 June 2004. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in the judgment in the case of Moskal v. Poland, no. 10373/05, § 31-34, 15 September 2009.