Communicated on 16 May 2019

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 69424/16 Jerzy DENYSIUK against Poland lodged on 18 November 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Jerzy Denysiuk , is a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Wrocław . He is represented before the Court by Ms A. Szurpicka , a lawyer practising in Wrocław .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Early retirement pension

3. On 18 August 2009 the applicant lodged a request for an early retirement pension.

4. On 22 October 2009 the applicant stopped working as it was a condition to obtain the early retirement pension.

5. On 30 November 2009 the Wrocław Social Security Board ( Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ) calculated the applicant ’ s early retirement pension for 2,750 Polish zlotys (PLN) gross. At the same time it informed the applicant of the amount of money collected on his individual fund (PLN 112,000 as contributions and PLN 565,000 as the initial capital).

The pension was indexed in August 2015 and reached PLN 3,301 (approximately 825 euros (EUR)).

2. Old-age pension

6. On 21 April 2015 the applicant lodged a request for a regular old-age pension.

7. On 25 May 2015 the Wrocław Social Security Board granted the applicant the old-age pension as of 4 April 2015. However, when calculating its amount it deducted from his individual pension fund the sum which had been already paid to him as early retirement (amounting to PLN 195,000). Such deduction was introduced by an amendment which entered into force on 1 January 2013. The applicant was informed that the sums collected on his individual fund had been indexed and amounted to PLN 158,000 as contributions and PLN 647,000 as initial capital. For calculation of his pension those two amounts were summed and PLN 195,000 was deducted. The total was divided by the number of months corresponding to median life expectancy. In result, his monthly old-age pension amounted to PLN 2,800 which had been lower than his early retirement pension. The Board decided therefore to suspend the old-age pension and continue paying him the early retirement pension as more advantageous to the applicant.

8. The applicant appealed against that decision. He argued that the provision allowing for the deduction from his fund of the sums already received as early retirement had been introduced only on 1 January 2013. Thus, at the time when he had resigned from work and had applied for early retirement pension the domestic law provided no deduction.

9. On 21 September 2015 the Wrocław Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) dismissed his appeal after finding that the old-age pension had been calculated in accordance with the law. The applicant appealed further.

10. On 15 June 2016 the Wrocław Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed his appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

11. On 1 January 2013 a new Section 25 (1b) of the Law of 17 December 1998 on retirements and disability pensions paid from the Social Insurance Fund ( Ustawa o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych , “the 1998 Act”) came into force. At the material time it read in so far as relevant:

“If the insured person had received an [early retirement] pension ... the basis for calculating the [old-age] pension ... shall be reduced by the sum of pensions already received.”

12. On 6 March 2019 the Constitutional Court (case no. P 20/16) ruled that Section 25 (1b) of the 1998 Act, in the wording in force until 30 September 2017, in so far as it concerned women born in 1953 who acquired the right to a pension under Article 46 of that Act before 1 January 2013, was incompatible with Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.

COMPLAINTS

13. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he was deprived of his possessions as the amount of money collected by him on his individual fund had been decreased by virtue of a law which entered into force after he had chosen to take early retirement. He submits that he had to quit work in order to qualify for the early retirement pension and his decision would have been different had he known that in a few years ’ time the law would change to his detriment. The applicant considers that without the deduction his monthly retirement pension would be PLN 480 higher.

He also complains that women who were in an identical situation to his, born in the same year, had not had the amount of their early retirement deducted from their individual fund.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?

What would have been the applicant ’ s old-age pension on 25 May 2015 had the new law not been applicable to him (and the sum of PLN 195,000 not deducted from his insurance fund)?

2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?