Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 15376/89

by Werner BEGING

against the Federal Republic of Germany

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 27 May 1991, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Sir Basil HALL

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission,

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 6 June 1989 by

Werner BEGING against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered

on 16 August 1989 under file No. 15376/89;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the

applicant, may be summarised as follows:

The applicant, born in 1925, is a German national and resident

at Durach.

In the course of his professional activities the applicant

was first employed by a private employer, and paid contributions under

the general Employees' Old Age Insurance Scheme (gesetzliche Renten-

versicherung). In 1966 he entered the public service and worked at

the Augsburg Tax Authority (Bezirksfinanzdirektion). The applicant

retired on 31 December 1988.

The payment of pensions to civil servants is regulated in the

Civil Servants Pension Act (Beamtenversorgungsgesetz), which was

reformed in July 1984. In particular, S. 55 in the amended version

provides that, if a person is entitled to both a pension under a

general Old Age Insurance Scheme and a pension under the Civil

Servants Pension Act, the latter pension will only be paid up to a

maximum limit, which is calculated on the basis of the final increment

step in the civil servant's grade upon which the calculation of his

pension as civil servant is based.

On 30 September 1987 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundes-

verfassungsgericht), in several leading cases, decided that S. 55 of

the Civil Servants Pension Act could not be objected to under

constitutional law. Such a reduction was justified for fiscal reasons,

namely the reduction of public expenses and of public debts.

On 9 March 1989 the Augsburg Tax Authority calculated the

applicant's pension under the Civil Servants Pension Act, taking in

particular his general old age pension into account (S. 55 of the Act).

On 17 March 1989 the Augsburg Tax Authority dismissed the

applicant's administrative appeal (Widerspruch) against the

application of S. 55 of the Civil Servants Pension Act. A writing

mistake was rectified on 12 April 1989.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains about S. 55 of the Civil Servants

Pension Act as applied in his case. He complains that his general old

age pension is fully deducted from his pension under the Civil

Servants Act, and that parliamentarians were allegedly exempted from

the application of the above rule. He does not invoke any provision of

the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that his old age pension which he

acquired under the general Old Age Insurance Scheme for Employees is

counted towards his pension under the Civil Servants Pension Act.

The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)of the Convention which provides in its first paragraph:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of

his possessions except in the public interest and subject to

the conditions provided for by law and by the general

principles of international law."

The Commission recalls that a right to a pension is not as

such guaranteed by the Convention. In certain circumstances, the

payment of contributions to a pension fund may create a property right

in a portion of such a fund and a modification of the pension rights

under such a system could in principle raise an issue under the above

Article. However, even assuming that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1) guarantees a person who has paid contributions to a special

insurance system the right to derive benefit from the system, it

cannot be interpreted as entitling that person to a pension of a

particular amount (cf. No. 5849/72, Müller v. Austria, Comm. Report

1.10.75, paras. 30 - 33, D.R. 3 p. 25).

The Commission has previously held that the co-ordination of

two pensions in order to prevent cumulation of social benefits does

not violate the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, even where

one of the two pensions is reduced (No. 10671/83, Dec. 4.3.85,

D.R. 42 p. 229).

The present applicant acquired in his professional life

pension rights both under the general Old Age Pension Scheme for

Employees and subsequently as a civil servant under the Civil Servants

Pension Act. The applicant's pension under the Civil Servants Pension

Act was calculated in accordance with S. 55 of the above Act,

taking, within certain limits, the amounts paid to him under the

general Old Age Pension Scheme into account.

The Commission, assuming that the applicant's complaint about

the calculation of his pension under the Civil Servants Pension Act

raises an issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), considers that the

co-ordination of the general old age pension and the pension under the

Civil Servants Pension Act does not amount to deprivation of property

contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

In the circumstances of the present case there is no

appearance of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), nor

of any other provision of the Convention. It follows that the

application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27

para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

BEGING v. GERMANY

BEGING v. GERMANY