Information Note on the Court’s case-law 217

April 2018

Dobrowolski and Others v. Poland (dec.) - 45651/11, 68650/11, 49/12 et al.

Decision 13.3.2018 [Section I]

Article 14

Discrimination

Alleged discriminatory treatment in level of wages paid to prisoners: inadmissible

Facts – The applicants were employed while serving prison sentences, receiving a salary equal to half of the statutory minimum wage gu aranteed to other employees. The law was amended on 8 March 2011 and the minimum wage of convicted persons was aligned with that of other employees.

Nine applicants lodged civil claims against the State on the basis that the Constitutional Court had estab lished the unconstitutionality of the relevant legislation. The applicants sought reimbursement of the difference between full and half the minimum wage for the periods of their employment prior to 8 March 2011. The domestic courts dismissed all actions lo dged stating that the salary received by the applicants for their work had been calculated in accordance with the law.

In the Convention proceedings, the applicants relied on Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They complained, inter alia , that the regulation allowing those engaged in work while imprisoned to be paid half of the basic minimum wage system had been discriminatory.

Law – Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protoc ol No. 1: The Court observed that the application concerned relations between prisoners carrying out remunerated work and their employers. The applicants’ work was not compulsory and they had been aware of the financial conditions before accepting them. Th e Court noted that the State regulated the minimum wage of prisoners to not less than half the minimum statutory wage but placed no limit on the maximum amount they could in theory reach. The applicants’ belief that prior to the law changing on 8 March 201 1 their pay should have been equal to that of ordinary workers had not been recognised by law or any judicial decision.

The Constitutional Court’s judgment declaring the impugned provision unconstitutional did not create an enforceable claim to the full mi nimum wage as the Constitutional Court expressly postponed its application until 8 March 2011. It was clearly provided that the unconstitutional provision of the domestic law would not lose its binding force until twelve months after the official publicati on of the judgment. Prior to the judgment and the subsequent amended legislation, the applicant did not have a legitimate expectation which could give rise to an issue under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

In sum, the applicants had not show n they had a claim which was sufficiently established to be enforceable, and therefore could not argue that they had a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Since Article 14 of the Convention was not autonomous, and since the fact s of the cases did not fall within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Article 14 could not apply in the instant case.

Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ).

© 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