Published on 24 April 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 231/22 Waldemar Ryszard RABOSZUK against Poland and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 5 April 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

The present applications concern the reduction of the applicants’ pensions and raise similar issues to Cichopek and Others v. Poland ((dec.), nos. 15189/10 and 1,627 others, 14 May 2013) and Bieliński v. Poland (no. 48762/19, 21 July 2022).

In 2017, following the entry into force of the amendments of the Law 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 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”), administrative decisions were issued recalculating the applicants’ pensions. The decisions were immediately enforceable. Upon appeal, the domestic courts did not accept the administrative decisions in their entirety, however, they partly decreased the applicants’ social benefits in relation to their original pension holding that, during certain periods of their service, they had served a totalitarian regime.

Furthermore Mr Raboszuk (application no. 231/22) was refused a 15% addition relevant for the calculation of his pension which he had received previously for his invalidity connected with his service in uniformed services.

The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the decrease of their pension constitutes a disproportionate interference with their acquired rights which, in turn, amounts to a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has the decrease of the applicants’ pension amounted to an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so:

(i) was the interference in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? And,

(ii) did the interference complained of put an excessive burden on the applicants?

Reference is made to the decrease of the applicants’ pension and, additionally, in case of Mr Raboszuk (application no. 321/22) to the fact that following the decrease of his pension he was refused a 15% addition relevant for the calculation of his pension which he had received previously for his invalidity connected with his service in uniformed services.

List of cases

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Case name

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

1.

231/22

08/12/2021

Raboszuk v. Poland

Waldemar RABOSZUK 1955 Sokołów Podlaski Polish

Bartosz Dominik BIELSKI

2.

5126/22

10/01/2022

Dzioba v. Poland

Lech DZIOBA 1956 Lublin Polish

Monika Małgorzata GĄSIOROWSKA

3.

5449/22

10/01/2022

Pastuszka v. Poland

Zbigniew PASTUSZKA 1954 Radom Polish

Monika Małgorzata GĄSIOROWSKA