MOCKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA
Inadmissible
Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani
1. The applicant, Ms Danutė Mockienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Mažeikiai. 3. The applicant was employed as an official at the Prisons Department until 31 January 2004, when she was discharged for health reasons. She was entitled to a service pension (valstybinė pensija) of 854 Lithuanian litai (LTL; approximately 247 euros (EUR)) per month from the date she left her job. 4. According to Lithuanian law, service pensions are not related to social insurance contributions but are paid from the State budget to individuals because of their merits or for service to the State (see paragraphs 19-20 below). State officials who are entitled to service pensions are also insured by the mandatory State social insurance scheme and are entitled to other types of welfare benefit, save in exceptional cases provided by law (see paragraph 21 below). 5. On 9 December 2009 the Lithuanian Parliament enacted the Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Welfare Benefits (Socialinių išmokų perskaičiavimo ir mokėjimo laikinasis įstatymas; hereinafter, “the Provisional Law”), which entered into force on 1 January 2010. According to the law’s preamble, the State budget deficit had been constantly increasing because of the economic crisis of that time and measures were needed to stabilise it (see paragraph 23 below). The Provisional Law set down rules for recalculating various welfare benefits, such as retirement pensions, disability benefits, maternity and paternity benefits, sickness benefits, unemployment benefits and service pensions, among others (see paragraph 24 below). 6. An explanatory report appended to the Provisional Law stated that the economic crisis had led to numerous legal acts being amended in an attempt to stabilise the State budget deficit – civil servants’ salaries had been reduced and there had been changes in tax law. However, further measures were considered necessary to address the crisis. The explanatory report referred to the work plan of the Government, which had set down the guidelines for addressing the economic slowdown in the face of the global financial crisis (see paragraph 22 below). It also referred to several Constitutional Court rulings adopted in 2002-2007, which had held that individuals entitled to certain welfare benefits had a legitimate expectation that they would continue to receive them; however, in the face of an exceptional situation, when the State was unable to acquire sufficient funds to continue the payment of welfare benefits, they could be temporarily reduced to the extent necessary to ensure the protection of constitutional values and the balance between the interests of individuals and those of society. 7. In line with Article 4 of the Provisional Law, service pensions were reduced by 5-20%, depending on their size, but the final amount after the recalculation could not be below LTL 650 (approximately EUR 188) a month (see paragraphs 25-26 below). 8. Article 15 of the Provisional Law stated that the law would expire on 31 December 2011, but that provision was subsequently amended several times. The Provisional Law ceased to apply on 31 December 2011 with regard to retirement pensions, disability benefits, maternity and paternity benefits, sickness benefits, and child benefit, but remained applicable with regard to service pensions until 31 December 2013. 9. Article 16 § 4 of the Provisional Law instructed the Government to prepare the necessary legal acts to establish a compensation mechanism for reduced retirement pensions and benefits for lost working capacity. It did not make any mention of a compensation mechanism for the other benefits that had been reduced (see paragraph 10 below). 10. On 29 June 2010 the Constitutional Court found that Article 16 § 4 of the Provisional Law (see paragraph 9 above) was not in compliance with the Constitution in so far as it had not required a compensation mechanism for those service pensions which had been reduced significantly (dideliu mastu; see the relevant excerpts in paragraph 27 below). 11. On 6 February 2012 the Constitutional Court issued a ruling which examined the compliance, inter alia, of Article 4 § 1 of the Provisional Law (see paragraph 7 above) with the Constitution. It reiterated that the State was justified in introducing temporary reductions in various welfare benefits when faced with an economic crisis, as long as those reductions respected the constitutional principles of the rule of law and non-discrimination, among others. The Constitutional Court concluded that Article 4 § 1 of the Provisional Law was in compliance with the Constitution because it had provided that service pensions could not be reduced by more than 20%, which could not be considered as “significant”. The absence of a compensation mechanism for service pensions reduced in line with Article 4 § 1 had therefore not breached the Constitution (see the relevant excerpts in paragraph 28 below). The ruling was published in the Official Gazette and entered into force on 21 September 2012. 12. On 14 May 2015 the Constitutional Court found that the different expiry dates for reductions in service pensions and other welfare benefits in Article 15 of the Provisional Law (see paragraph 8 above) were compatible with the Constitution in view of the “different nature and character” of service pensions compared with other benefits (see the relevant excerpts in paragraph 29 below). 13. In accordance with Article 4 § 1 of the Provisional Law (see paragraphs 7 above and 26 below), the applicant’s service pension was reduced on 1 January 2010 by approximately 15% to LTL 724 (approximately EUR 210) per month. 14. On 4 March 2011 the applicant brought a claim against the State. She requested that her service pension be restored to its pre-2010 level and that she be compensated for the period of reduced pension. The applicant also asked the court to seek a ruling from the Constitutional Court as to whether various provisions of the Provisional Law were in compliance with the Constitution. 15. On 2 November 2011 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court adjourned the applicant’s case on the grounds that several requests concerning the compliance of the Provisional Law with the Constitution were pending before the Constitutional Court. The case was adjourned until the entry into force of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 6 February 2012 (see paragraphs 11 above and 28 below). 16. On 13 November 2012 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It held that the applicant’s service pension had been reduced in accordance with Article 4 § 1 of the Provisional Law, which the Constitutional Court had found to be in compliance with the Constitution (see paragraphs 7 and 11 above and 28 below). There were therefore no grounds to restore her pension to its pre-2010 level or compensate her for the period of reduction. 17. On 6 June 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the findings of the first-instance court. 18. The relevant provisions of the Constitution read: “Any law or other act that contradicts the Constitution shall be invalid. ...” “Property shall be inviolable. The rights of ownership shall be protected by law. Property may be taken only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for.” “All persons shall be equal before the law, courts, and other state institutions and officials. Human rights may not be restricted; no one may be granted any privileges on the grounds of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, social status, belief, convictions, or views.” “The State shall guarantee its citizens the right to receive retirement and disability pensions, as well as social assistance in the event of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, loss of the breadwinner, and in other cases provided for by law.” “A law (or part thereof) of the Republic of Lithuania ... may not be applied from the day of the official publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court that the act in question (or part thereof) is in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The decisions of the Constitutional Court on the issues assigned to its competence by the Constitution shall be final and not subject to appeal. ...” 19. Articles 1 and 4 of the Law on Service Pensions (Valstybinių pensijų įstatymas) list the categories of people who are entitled to service pensions, such as State officials, soldiers, judges, scientists, former deportees, resistance fighters, Olympic medalists, and others; separate laws set out the specific regulations for each category (see, for example, paragraph 20 below). Article 2 provides that service pensions are paid from the State budget. Article 3 provides that a person who is entitled to several service pensions can only receive one, of his or her choice. 20. Article 1 of the Law on the Service Pensions of Officials and Soldiers (Karių ir pareigūnų valstybinių pensijų įstatymas) lists the categories of State officials who are entitled to service pensions, such as Interior Ministry service officials, professional soldiers, prosecutors, Prisons Department officials, customs and border officers, and others. Article 3 § 1 provides that officials become eligible for a service pension after serving for a certain length of time or after being discharged for health reasons related to their duties. Article 7 sets the rules for calculating the amount of service pension, linking it to length of service and the average salary received during that time. 21. Article 2 § 1 of the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions (Valstybinių socialinio draudimo pensijų įstatymas) provides that State officials are insured by the mandatory State social insurance scheme. Article 5 § 3 provides that individuals who are entitled to a State social insurance pension do not lose the right to receive service pensions or other benefits, save for exceptional cases provided by law. 22. The work plan of the Lithuanian Government, adopted in December 2008, stated that one of the main priorities of the Government was to prepare for the economic slowdown in the face of the serious global financial crisis. It set down guidelines for decreasing public spending, reforming tax law, balancing cash flows, and encouraging private businesses, among other things. 23. The preamble to the Provisional Law (see paragraph 5 above), provides: “The Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania, Acknowledging that forecasts for the State budget and the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund indicate constant increases in the deficit caused by the economic crisis in Lithuania; Emphasising the need to stabilise the increase in the deficit in the State budget and the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund and to balance cash flows; Aiming, as far as possible, to protect vulnerable groups in society and to ensure the timely payment of benefits during the economic crisis; Having regard to the fact that the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has repeatedly held that in exceptional situations (economic crises, natural disasters, and so forth), when it is impossible to acquire sufficient funds for the payment of welfare benefits, the legal regulation concerning such benefits can be amended and the benefits temporarily reduced for the duration of the exceptional situation to the extent necessary for ensuring the protection of the vitally important interests of society and other constitutional values; Hereby enacts this provisional law.” 24. Article 1 § 2 of the Provisional Law lists the categories of welfare benefits to which it applies: “2. The present law is applicable to recipients of the following benefits: 1) service pensions awarded in accordance with the Law on Service Pensions, the Law on the Service Pensions of Officials and Soldiers, the Law on Judges’ Service Pensions, and the Provisional Law on the Service Pensions of Scientists; 2) compensation awarded in accordance with the Law on Theatres and Concert Halls; 3) annuities awarded in accordance with the Law on the President’s State Annuity, the Law on the Status of Signatories of the Act of Lithuanian Independence and the Law on Physical Training and Sport; 4) relief benefits paid to employable individuals of working age and benefits for nursing or care awarded in accordance with the Law on Relief Benefits; 5) state social insurance retirement pensions, except for recipients who have a high level of special needs; early retirement pensions; benefits for lost working capacity (disability) awarded to those who have lost 45-70% of their working capacity (disability of the second and third category) [and other welfare benefits] awarded in accordance with the Law on State Social Insurance Pensions and the Law on State Social Insurance Early Retirement Pensions; 6) sickness, professional rehabilitation, maternity and paternity benefits awarded in accordance with the Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance; 7) sickness benefits awarded in accordance with the Law on Work-Related Accidents and Professional Sickness Social Insurance; 8) maternity (paternity) benefits awarded to State officials and soldiers from the State budget in accordance with the relevant legal acts; 9) child benefit awarded in accordance with the Law on Child Benefit; 10) unemployment benefits awarded in accordance with the Law on Unemployment Social Insurance.” 25. Article 3 § 1 of the Provisional Law establishes a minimum threshold (ribinis dydis) of LTL 650 (approximately EUR 188). 26. Article 4 § 1 of the Provisional Law establishes that service pensions and some other welfare benefits are to be recalculated in accordance with the rules set forth in Annex 1 of the Law. Annex 1 sets recalculation coefficients ranging from 5-20%, with a higher coefficient being applied to higher benefits. Article 4 § 5 provides that the minimum set out in Article 3 § 1 (see paragraph 25 above) is paid if the amount after the recalculation is below or equal to that level. 27. In its ruling of 29 June 2010 the Constitutional Court held: “In an exceptional situation when, inter alia, it is impossible because of an economic crisis to bring in sufficient funds to pay service pensions, the legislature, when reducing service pensions significantly, must establish ... a compensation mechanism to oblige the State, once the exceptional situation is over, to provide compensation, fairly and without an unreasonable delay, for the losses endured by such persons because of their reduced service pensions ... Therefore, according to the Constitution, compensation must be provided for losses resulting from a significant reduction in service pensions ... Article 16 § 4 of the Provisional Law ... which instructs the Government to establish a compensation mechanism only for retirement pensions and benefits for lost working capacity and not for significantly reduced service pensions, cannot be justified under the Constitution.” 28. In its ruling of 6 February 2012 the Constitutional Court held: “The Provisional Law, as stated in its preamble, was enacted to limit increases in the deficit of the State budget and the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund caused by the economic crisis. Having regard to the especially difficult economic and financial situation in the State, and aiming to protect, to the greatest extent possible, socially vulnerable groups, the Law set down the rules for the recalculation of welfare benefits, which led to the reduction of those benefits. At the same time, the Law established certain thresholds: welfare benefits which did not exceed a minimum threshold could not be reduced, whereas those which exceeded that minimum threshold could be reduced only to the extent provided for in the Law. It must be emphasised that the Provisional Law is of only temporary application. Furthermore, it instructs the Government to adopt the necessary regulations to establish a compensation mechanism for reduced retirement pensions and benefits for lost working capacity. ... The Constitutional Court has repeatedly held that service pensions, which are not explicitly provided for in Article 52 of the Constitution, differ from social insurance pensions by their nature and character. They are awarded to people for their service or merits to the State of Lithuania ... and they are paid from the State budget. Receipt of those pensions is not linked to contributions to the social insurance system, but to a certain status (such as service, merits or other relevant circumstances). The specific character of service pensions permits the legislature to establish the conditions for awarding them; the legislature’s discretion in that regard is wider than in the regulation of other pensions. The conditions for awarding service pensions can vary greatly and depend on, inter alia, the nature of the service and the State’s financial resources. The legislature can also establish a maximum number for such pensions. Nonetheless, the people who fulfil the conditions established by law are entitled to receive the corresponding service pension and the State owes them a legal obligation to pay such a pension ... The Constitutional Court has also held that the specific character of service pensions ... implies that the legislature may amend the legal regulation and reduce those pensions to a greater extent than retirement pensions or disability benefits ... The specific character of service pensions also implies that the compensation provided for losses incurred because of a reduction in those pensions may be smaller than for losses incurred because of a reduction in retirement or disability pensions ... ... As already stated above, the Provisional Law was enacted to limit increases in the deficit of the State budget and the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund caused by the economic crisis; it set down rules for the recalculation of welfare benefits which led, inter alia, to the temporary reduction of those benefits ... It must be underlined that when recalculating service pensions in line with Article 4 § 1, the pension cannot be reduced by more than 20% ... Taking into account the fact that in line with Article 4 § 1 of the Provisional Law a service pension ... cannot be reduced by more than 20%, there are no grounds to find that such a legal regulation reduces service pensions significantly. Accordingly, there are no grounds to find that the absence of a mechanism in the Provisional Law designed to compensate people whose service pensions were reduced in line with Article 4 § 1 ... is not in compliance with Articles 23, 29 and 52 of the Constitution or the constitutional principle of a State under the rule of law. ...” 29. In its ruling of 14 May 2015 the Constitutional Court held: “The State’s constitutional duty to accumulate the funds necessary for the payment of benefits in order to repeal laws which have reduced them, ... cannot be interpreted as a duty to repeal [such laws] only when it becomes possible to accumulate sufficient funds to restore all the reduced benefits. When it becomes possible to accumulate a part of such funds, the legislature, taking into account the State’s economic and financial situation, its means, and the various obligations which it has undertaken, can decide to restore benefits of a different nature and character at different times or to a different extent. When making such a decision, the legislature must comply with the Constitution and the constitutional requirements of, inter alia, a State under the rule of law, equality of persons, equity, and proportionality, and with the requirement to take into consideration the specific circumstances and differences between the legal status of the persons who will be subject to a different legal regulation. ... Accordingly, the legal regulation which established a longer period of reduction in service pensions ... than in some other welfare benefits ... is considered as a reduction in service pensions to a greater extent in view of their different nature and character in comparison with other welfare benefits (inter alia, retirement pensions and disability benefits), that is to say, as an objectively justified difference in the treatment of different categories of beneficiaries ... Therefore, there are no grounds to find that [the amended Article 15 of the Provisional Law] violated the constitutional principles of a State under the rule of law, equality of persons, equity, and proportionality.” 30. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the length of court proceedings and available domestic remedies is summarised in Savickas and Others v. Lithuania ((dec.), nos. 66365/09 and 5 others, §§ 2139, 15 October 2013).