Information Note on the Court’s case-law 49

January 2003

Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland (dec.) - 60669/00

Decision 28.1.2003 [Section II]

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Deprivation of property

Termination of disability pension following introduction of new rules: admissible

The applicant worked on a trawler until he suffered a serious work accident in 1978, at the age of 29. His l evel of disability was assessed at 100%, making him eligible for a disability pension from the Pension Fund, to which he had contributed, on an interrupted basis, from 1969 to 1981. In accordance with the applicable legislation, the assessment was based in particular on the fact that the applicant could no longer perform his normal work and had suffered a diminution of his physical strength of 35% or more. The legislation was revised in 1992 so as to take into account the person’s ability to perform work of any kind. This change was made in response to the Pension Fund’s financial difficulties and was to apply also to persons already in receipt of a disability pension, after a transition period of five years. In 1994, another legislative change brought disab ility and child benefit within the scope of regulations that took effect in September 1994. The applicant contends that the five-year transition period was terminated on that date. The Government maintain that the transition period was not affected and ran until 1997. A new assessment of the applicant found that his incapacity for work in general was less than 35%. Consequently, his disability pension and related child benefit were stopped in July 1997. According to figures supplied by the Government, of th e 689 persons in receipt of a disability pension when the transition period expired, 54, including the applicant, were found not to reach the threshold of 35% and so ceased to qualify. A large number of beneficiaries had their pensions reduced, while some were found to be 100% incapable of work in general and thus retained a full pension. The applicant instituted proceedings against the Pension Fund and the State. The District Court dismissed his claim. On appeal, the Supreme Court found the contested measu res were justified by the Fund’s financial situation and that there had been no discrimination in their application.

Admissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.

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

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes