Published on 4 October 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 39710/19 Władysław STAROWICZ against Poland and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 13 September 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

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

The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Cracow.

From 20 February 1953 until 10 March 1990 the applicant was employed in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. On an unspecified date he retired. In addition to receiving an old-age pension he is also authorised to receive a disability pension.

On 10 June 2017 the Director of the Board for Pensions ( Dyrektor Zakładu Emerytalno-Rentowego Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji ), pursuant to section 15c and section 22a read in conjunction with section 32(1) of the Act of 18 February 1994 on old-age pensions of functionaries of the police, the Internal Security Agency, the Intelligence Agency, the Military Counter-Intelligence Service the Military Intelligence Service, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Border Guard, the Government Protection Bureau, the State Fire Service, the Prison Service and their families ( ustawa o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym funkcjonariuszy funkcjonariuszy Policji, Agencji Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego, Agencji Wywiadu, Służby Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego, Służby Wywiadu Wojskowego, Centralnego Biura Antykorupcyjnego, Straży Granicznej, Biura Ochrony Rządu, Państwowej Straży Pożarnej i Służby Więziennej oraz ich rodzin – “the 1994 Act”) and on the basis of information received from the Institute for National Remembrance (IPN), issued two decisions on the re-assessment of the applicant’s old-age pension and disability pension. Before the re-assessment his old age pension amounted to 2,539.37 Polish zlotys (PLN) and his disability pension to PLN 4,580.08. The applicant had been receiving a disability pension as a more favourable benefit. After the re-assessment he receives PLN 1,000 of old-age pension since this has become the more favourable benefit.

The applicant lodged an appeal against these decisions with the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division ( Sąd Okręgowy – Wydział Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ). He also requested an injunction to be paid his disability pension in the amount from before the re-assessment.

On 10 October 2017 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his request for injunction.

On 9 February 2018 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings. The court relied on the fact that in another similar case pending before the same court, on 24 January 2018, legal questions had been directed by the court to the Constitutional Court as regards constitutionality of the provisions introducing new calculation methods for old-age pensions. Since then no action has been undertaken by the Constitutional Court.

The applicant appealed, however, on 27 April 2018, the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed it.

On 25 February 2019 the applicant complained to the Warsaw Court of Appeal about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Regional Court. He sought a declaration that the impugned proceedings had been lengthy, just satisfaction of PLN 20,000 and requested to order the Regional Court to examine his case within 3 months.

On 11 April 2019 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s length complaint holding that the length of the proceedings could not be attributable to the Regional Court, because the examination of the merits of the case was dependent on the result of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Warsaw.

From 16 November 1978 until 31 July 1990 the applicant was employed in the security service. In 1990 he started working for the Police in the criminal department of the Kielce Police Headquarters and continued his employment for the Police on various posts since then. He retired in 2005.

On 17 June 2017 the Director of the Board for Pensions, pursuant to section 15c and section 22a read in conjunction with section 32(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the Institute for National Remembrance (IPN), issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s old-age pension. His current benefit amounts to PLN 2.069,02 which, after taxation amounts to PLN 1.716,81.

The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division. He also requested an injunction to suspend the execution of the challenged decision.

On 24 August 2017 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his request for injunction.

On 22 February 2018 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings. The court relied on the fact that in another similar case pending before the same court, on 24 January 2018, legal questions had been directed by the court to the Constitutional Court as regards constitutionality of the provisions introducing new calculation methods for old-age pensions. Since then no action has been undertaken by the Constitutional Court.

The applicant appealed, however, on 25 April 2018, the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed it.

On 4 July 2019 the applicant complained to the Warsaw Court of Appeal about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Regional Court. He sought a declaration that the impugned proceedings had been lengthy, just satisfaction of PLN 20,000 and requested to order the Regional Court to examine his case within 3 months.

On 23 September 2019 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s length complaint holding that the length of the proceedings could not be attributable to the Regional Court, because the examination of the merits of the case was dependent on the result of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

On 3 January 2020 the applicant requested the Regional Court to resume the proceedings.

On 5 February 2020 the Regional Court dismissed his request holding that since the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were still pending, the reason for which the main proceedings had been stayed had not ceased to exist. The applicant appealed.

On 26 August 2020 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended the challenged decision and ordered the Regional Court to resume the proceedings.

The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Rzeszów. He is represented before the Court by Mr. K. Pączek, a lawyer practicing in Rzeszów.

The course of the applicant’s professional carrier is unknown. However, it is clear from the submitted documents that he is receiving a police disability pension.

On 8 June 2017 the Director of the Board for Pensions, pursuant to section 15c and section 22a read in conjunction with section 32(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the Institute for National Remembrance (IPN), issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s disability pension. His pension was lowered from PLN 3.032,13 to PLN 1.209,59. After taxation the current benefit amounts to PLN 1.063,59.

The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division. He also requested an injunction to suspend the execution of the challenged decision.

On 30 January 2018 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his request for injunction.

On 1 March 2018 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings. The court relied on the fact that in another similar case pending before the same court, on 24 January 2018, legal questions had been directed by the court to the Constitutional Court as regards constitutionality of the provisions introducing new calculation methods for old-age pensions. Since then no action has been undertaken by the Constitutional Court.

On 3 January 2020 the applicant complained to the Warsaw Court of Appeal about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Regional Court. He sought a declaration that the impugned proceedings had been lengthy and just satisfaction of PLN 10,000.

On 18 March 2020 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s length complaint holding that the length of the proceedings could not be attributable to the Regional Court, because the examination of the merits of the case was dependent on the result of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

On 28 January 2020 the applicant requested the Regional Court to resume the proceedings.

On 30 January 2020 the Regional Court dismissed his request.

The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Warsaw.

Between 1963 and 1973 the applicant worked for the Civic Militia ( Milicja Obywatelska ). Subsequently, until 1993, he served in the military. It appears that since 1993 he has been receiving a police old-age pension.

On 26 July 2017 the Director of the Board for Pensions, pursuant to section 15c and section 22a read in conjunction with section 32(1) of the 1994 Act and on the basis of information received from the Institute for National Remembrance (IPN), issued a decision on the re-assessment of the applicant’s old-age pension. After re-assessment his benefit amounts to PLN 1.356,81 which, after taxation, amounts to PLN 1.147,22.

The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with the Warsaw Regional Court – Social Security Division.

On 16 December 2019 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings. The court relied on the fact that in another similar case pending before the same court, on 24 January 2018, legal questions had been directed by the court to the Constitutional Court as regards constitutionality of the provisions introducing new calculation methods for old-age pensions. Since then no action has been undertaken by the Constitutional Court.

On 18 May 2020 the applicant complained to the Warsaw Court of Appeal about the excessive length of the proceedings before the Regional Court. He sought a declaration that the impugned proceedings had been lengthy, just satisfaction of PLN 10,000 and requested to order the Regional Court to examine his case and finalise the proceedings.

On 13 July 2020 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s length complaint holding that the length of the proceedings could not be attributable to the Regional Court, because the examination of the merits of the case was dependent on the result of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning pension entitlements of former functionaries of the uniformed services was described in Cichopek and Others v. Poland, (dec.), nos. 15189/10 and 1,627 other applications, §§ 63–87, 14 May 2013). For relevant domestic law concerning the complaints against the excessive length of civil proceedings, see Rutkowski and Others v. Poland , nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, § 75–92, 7 July 2015.

On 1 January 2017 an amendment of 16 December 2016 to the 1994 Act came into force. In particular, Section 15 c was added, according to which one of the coefficients relevant for the calculation of pensions of former functionaries was lowered from 0.7 % to 0.0 % for each year of service with the former communist State security authorities in the period from 1944 to 1990.

According to Section 15 c (3) of the amended 1994 Act, the amount of old-age pension calculated on the newly introduced principles cannot be higher that the monthly average old-age pension paid by the Social Security Board ( Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ) announced by the President of the Board.

The request for a preliminary ruling was lodged with the Constitutional Court on 27 February 2018 and registered under the case number P 4/18. The first hearing before the Constitutional Court was scheduled to take place on 17 March 2020; it was rescheduled to 21 April 2020. On the latter date the hearing was adjourned until 19 May 2020 and later until 2 June 2020. On 15 June 2020 the Constitutional Court adjourned the hearing again until 18 August 2020. On 18 August 2020 the Constitutional Court heard submissions from the Prosecutor General ( Prokurator Generalny ) and representatives of the Sejm (the lower house of Parliament). It then adjourned the hearing until 11 September 2020. On the latter date the hearing was cancelled and postponed until 6 October 2020. That hearing was also adjourned and the Constitutional Court was to pronounce the judgment on 20 October 2020. However, on that date the Constitutional Court decided that the case needed re-examination, the judgment was not pronounced and the next hearing was to take place on 17 June 2021. Also that hearing was adjourned.

On 17 June 2021 the Constitutional Court gave judgment in a similar case concerning lowering of disability pensions for former functionaries of uniformed services (P 10/20). If found that the relevant provisions lowering these benefits were in accordance with the Polish Constitution.

COMPLAINTS

All applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of proceedings in their cases.

Mr. Sucholewski (application no. 10108/20) and Mr. Jerszów (application no. 31731/20) also rely on the same Article complaining that due to the excessive length of their proceedings they were effectively denied access to court.

Mr. Starowicz (application no. 39710/19) and Mr. Sucholewski (application no. 10108/20) further complain under Article 13 of the Convention that the existing remedy, namely the complaint against the excessive length of the proceedings, cannot be considered “effective” in their specific situation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Question relating to all four applicants:

Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present cases in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Question relating to Mr. Sucholewski (10108/20) and M. Cudziło (32856/20):

Did the applicants have access to a court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Question relating to Mr. Starowicz (39710/19) and Mr. Sucholewski (10108/20):

Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy to challenge the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, were they able to challenge the alleged inactivity of the Constitutional Court?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant

Year of Birth

Place of Residence

Represented by

1

39710/19

Starowicz

v. Poland

18/07/2019

Władysław STAROWICZ

1931Cracow

2

10108/20

Sucholewski v. Poland

04/02/2020

Leszek Wiesław SUCHOLEWSKI

1954Warsaw

3

31731/20

Jerszów

v. Poland

17/07/2020

Janusz JERSZÓW

1952Rzeszów

Krzysztof PÄ„CZEK

4

32856/20

Cudziło

v. Poland

22/07/2020

Zdzisław CUDZIŁO

1941Warsaw