European Court of Human Rights

Press Release

issued by the Registrar of the Court

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUR EUROPEENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

Forthcoming Grand Chamber judgment in a case concerning a civil servant's pension rights

Principal facts and complaints

The applicant, Gyula Fabian, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Budapest.

Mr Fabian took early retirement at the age of around 47 and started receiving a service pension from 1 January 2000. However, he continued to work, first in the private sector from 2000 to 2012, and then in the public sector from 1 July 2012 to 1 April 2015.

On 1 January 2013 an amendment to the 1997 Pensions Act entered into force, according to which the disbursement of old-age pensions to persons employed at the same time in certain categories within the civil service would be suspended from 1 July 2013 onwards for the duration of their employment.

On 2 July 2013 the National Pensions Administration informed Mr Fabian, who had been working as the head of the Road Maintenance Department of a district municipality in Budapest, that the disbursement of his pension - equivalent to around 550 euros (EUR) per month at the relevant time - had been suspended as of 1 July 2013 because he was employed at the same time in the public sector. Mr Fabian appealed unsuccessfully against that decision. He left his post with the municipality on 31 March 2015 and began once more to receive his pension, which had been increased to around EUR 585.

The rule in question did not apply to retired persons working in the private sector.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Fabian complains about the suspension of disbursement of his pension.

Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Mr Fabian alleges that he was subjected to an unjustified difference in treatment compared with pension recipients working in the private sector and those working in certain categories within the public sector.

Procedure

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 December 2013.

In its Chamber judgment of 15 December 2015 the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

On 11 March 2016 the Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 of the Convention (referral to the Grand Chamber), and on 2 May 2016 the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request. A hearing took place on 9 November 2016.

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court's press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHRpress.

Press contacts

echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

2

1

Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention).

All final judgments are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.