FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 9899/15 László TÓTH against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 June 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President, Péter Paczolay , Raffaele Sabato, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 February 2015,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr László Tóth , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Tarpa . He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Fazekas, a lawyer practising in Budapest.

The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi , of the Ministry of Justice.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant used to be an officer of the border administration service. In 2011 he suffered a work accident. On 24 May 2013 he was dismissed from service on account of his resulting impaired health, termination effective as of 24 January 2014. A total service length of 26 years, 10 months and 23 days was recognised in the decision.

On 13 February 2014 the Pension Directorate issued a decision which attested that – in the period between 1987 and 31 December 2007 – the applicant had accumulated 20 years of service, a fact corresponding to 132,955 Hungarian forints of future monthly pension entitlement. The decision specified that he was no pensioner and that only the guaranteed amount of future pension was being established.

On 25 March 2014 the applicant was placed in the police ’ s reserve until 24 January 2015. In the related decision it was laid down again that his total recognised service time was 26 years, 10 months and 23 days. After this latter date, he received no remuneration or pension of any kind.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he was not in receipt of pension despite having accumulated the requisite length of service time.

THE LAW

The applicant claimed that the change of pension rules as of 1 January 2012 had effectively removed his pension entitlement, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which provides as follows:

“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 preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

The Government stressed that it was a difference in the interpretation of domestic law that lay at the heart of the case. If acting consistently, the applicant should have brought his case before the pension authorities, claimed pension and challenged any rejection in court. This testing of his interpretation of the law would have allowed the domestic courts to elucidate the matter.

They submitted in particular that, as of 31 December 2011, the applicant did not have 25 years of service time (at that time, he had only 24 years and 305 days), for which reason he had not acquired entitlement to service pension under the then relevant rules (section 182(1) of Act no. XLIII of 1996 (“the Service Act”)). Under section 182/A of the Service Act, after 20 years of service the applicant became entitled to the ex officio establishment (fixing) of the amount of his future pension benefit, without disbursement of pension. This was done on 13 February 2014.

The Government further explained that under the old rules the applicant had only become entitled (after acquiring a minimum of 20 years of service time) to the establishment (fixing) of the amount of his future pension benefit, but not to any actual disbursement of pension. The fixing of the pension benefit meant that, once meeting the pension eligibility criteria, the applicant would, irrespective of any future changes in his income or in the pension calculation methods, be entitled at least to the fixed pension benefit. The applicant did not at all lose this advantage when his service was terminated; on the contrary, his fixed pension benefit was annually raised according to the relevant pension increase rules. As a result, when reaching the retirement age, he might request the disbursement of the thus increased fixed pension if it is more favourable than the pension benefit to be calculated under the pension calculation rules in force at the time of his retirement. In sum, this means that the applicant had not acquired a right falling within the notion of “possessions” for the disbursement of pension prior to reaching the statutory retirement age. However, he did not lose his future right to obtain the fixed pension benefit.

The applicant submitted that the Government misrepresented the relevant law. In his reading, the elements that ( i ) he had the minimum of 20 years ’ service attested and (ii) he had accumulated more than 26 years of service should have conferred on him actual pension rights (disbursement included) on termination of his service and irrespective of the law in effect at the time of his retirement. This right, frustrated, amounted to a “possession” for the purpose of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

He further submitted that, under the previous legal regime which was in force until 31 December 2011, he had acquired the right to full pension if he had accumulated at least 25 years of service time and his service was terminated because of ill health (both of which conditions were met in his case). However, under the amended rules in force as of 1 January 2012, he did not qualify as pensioner and could not obtain any remuneration or pension, despite the rights conferred on him by the old regime.

The Court notes that the parties differ as to the meaning of the “fixing” of the amount of the applicant ’ s future pension benefit. Indeed, this concept and its ramifications within the context of the old and new pension regime constitute the crux of the matter before the Court. However, it appears that the applicant did not pursue any formal proceedings whatsoever aimed to obtaining the domestic courts ’ view in the matter. In this context, the Court recalls that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation (see, amongst many other authorities, Vučković and Others v. Serbia [GC], no. 17153/11, § 80, 25 March 2014; Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, § 102, ECHR 2013; and Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 54, ECHR 1999‑I). For want of any relevant procedure pursued by the applicant at the domestic level, the Court concludes that he cannot complain about the matter at hand before the Court (see, mutatis mutandis , Štajcar v. Croatia ( dec. ), no. 46279/99, 20 January 2000).

The application is therefore manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 22 July 2021 .

             {signature_p_2}

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar President