Information Note on the Court’s case-law 56

September 2003

Czerwińska and Others v. Poland (dec.) - 33828/96

Decision 30.9.2003 [Section IV]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Cancellation of indexing of salaries and delay in payment of compensation: inadmissible

A law of 1989 designed to harmonise the salaries of servants of the State in the ad ministrative sector with those in the manufacturing sector introduced an indexation of salaries in the administrative sector. A Law of 1991 abolished that indexation for the second half of 1991 and introduced a scheme for the reimbursement of the differenc e between the salaries in the form of a lump sum. However, payment of this lump sum was deferred. A Law of 1993 decided to grant “compensation certificates” which could be exchanged for shares. In 1993, the applicants brought legal proceedings, but without success, for reimbursement of the difference between the salaries paid under the Law of 1991 and those to which they were entitled under the Law of 1989. A Law of 1997 affirmed the principle of compensation for the lack of indexation of salaries in 1991 a nd 1992. Eventually, a Law of 1999 and its implementing regulation introduced the principle of payment of a sum of money and defined the specific rules, such as periods of payment.

Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: a) In so far as the complai nt relates to the deprivation of the right to the increase in salaries and its consequences for the calculation of the retirement pension, it is incompatible ratione temporis . That does not apply to the question of failure to pay within a certain time the sums payable in the form of “compensation certificates” or of direct payment, since the Government continued to legislate on that matter after the date of the entry into force of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Poland. b) The Laws of 1993 and 1997 did not giv e rise to a defined and quantifiable obligation towards the applicants on the part of the State. Accordingly, before 1999 the applicants were not the owners of a debt sufficiently established to be payable and could not therefore rely on an “asset” before that date. Nor can the applicants claim to be “victims” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention since 1999, in so far as certain sums were awarded to them and the authorities are at present in the process of paying them. The mere fact that payment is staggered and that the age of those concerned has been adopted as a criterion cannot in itself constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Cou rt.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes