JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE S HIRVELÄ AND BIANKU

To our regret, we are unable to agree with the majority in this case. The reasons for our dissent are identical to those expressed in the joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Bratza, Hirvelä and Bianku in the leading case of Moskal v. Poland (no. 10373/05, 15 September 2009).

However, in view of the significant number of Polish cases based on the same or at least very similar circumstances which have been examined simultaneously by the Court together with the Lewandowski v. Poland case, we feel it necessary to add the following comments.

The majority puts the emphasis for finding a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on the proportionality of the measures taken by the authorities when revoking the early retirement pension (the “EWK” pension), following a review of the applicant ’ s dossier. Just as in Moskal (§ 72) the majority concludes that the authorities, having discovered their mistake, failed in their duty to act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner, referring also to the principle of good governance (see § 80 of the judgement).

Comparing all 1 0 cases examined by the Court on the same day as Lewandowski, it seems that the erroneous evaluation made by the authorities of the applicants ’ entitlement to a EWK pension took place in the same region, Podkarpacki, and within a one-year period. This, in our opinion, shows that the mistake was rather limited in time and space. While a common definition of the concept of good governance is not easy to find at European level, it seems to us that this principle, as well as appropriateness and consistency, would require the EWK policy to be applied in the same way throughout the territory of Poland, and that persons and families fulfilling the legal conditions for obtaining a pension should be granted one. This is all the more true when regard is had to the normally limited resources governments have at their disposal as far as social care is concerned and to the interests of other individuals, especially children in need of care and their parents who have to take care of them. In this regard we reiterate the concerns expressed in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the joint partly dissenting opinion in the Moskal case.