LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CONSTANTINOU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
Doc ref: 77396/14 • ECHR ID: 001-201461
Document date: January 29, 2020
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
CONSTANTINOU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
Doc ref: 77396/14 • ECHR ID: 001-201461
Document date: January 29, 2020
Cited paragraphs only
Communicated on 29 January 2020 Published on 17 February 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 77396/14 Constantinos CONSTANTINOU and others against Cyprus lodged on 9 December 2014
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the deduction of a tiered percentage monthly from the applicants ’ gross salaries on the basis of the Law on Extraordinary Contribution of Officials, Employees and Pensioners of the Civil Service and the Wider Public Sector of 2011 (Law no. 112(I)/2011, as amended) from 1 September 2011 until 31 December 2016. The applicants ’ details are listed in the appendix.
The applicants ’ recourses challenging the constitutionality of the above Law were dismissed by the Supreme Court sitting as a full bench (that is, all thirteen judges) on 11 June 2014. The Supreme Court also found that the measures taken were not in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention. Three justices, however, dissented.
The applicants complain that the deduction of an extraordinary contribution from their salaries by Law no. 112(I)/2011 violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that the reduction of their salaries, on the basis of their status as public officers, was discriminatory.
The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr L. Loucaides , a lawyer practising in Nicosia.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1 . Did the impugned measures under Law no. 112(I)/2011 constitute an interference with the applicants ’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, bearing in mind that the protection of the right to property under Article 23 of the Constitution is wider than that provided for by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, can it be said that the interference was in accordance with domestic law? Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in a democratic society?
2 Did the impugned measures under Law no. 112(I)/2011 discriminate against the applicants in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention on the ground that they were public officers?
APPENDIX
No.
Applicant ’ s Name
Birth date
Place of residence
Recourse number before the Supreme Court
1Constantinos CONSTANTINOU
01/01/1967
Limassol
1591/2011
2Andrianna ACHILLEOS
31/01/1962
Nicosia
1483/2011
3George CHARALAMBOUS
15/10/1948
Nicosia
1480/2011
4Maria CHRISTOFOROU
09/09/1959
Nicosia
1625/2011
5Thefilaxtos FILAXTOU
09/07/1973
Nicosia
1591/2011
6George FLOURENTZOU
07/02/1952
Nicosia
1481/2011
7Antonis KOUTSOULI
23/02/1959
Nicosia
1484/2011
8Evstratios MATHAIOU
31/10/1956
Nicosia
1482/2011
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
