TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): In fact, Hungary successfully got out of the European Union's excessive deficit procedure already on the 21st of June 2013, undisputedly prior to the start of the suspension of the applicant's pension.
AP1 (Applicant): In that respect, I would like to rely on attachment number three submitted to the court.
AP1 (Applicant): This is an article which discloses the fact that in reality, there is a yearly surplus in the state pension fund which amounted just in year 2014 to 183.3 billion Hungarian forints.
AP1 (Applicant): The government indicated insofar a number of different figures as the alleged savings of the budget.
AP1 (Applicant): Due to the impugned law, however, let me remind you that none of them was higher to 10 billion Hungarian forints per year, namely almost 20 times smaller to the above savings.
AP1 (Applicant): This fact is important as the government apparently tries to rely on the alleged financial troubles of the budget.
AP1 (Applicant): This 183.3 billion Hungarian forints surplus is a prime facie evidence
AP1 (Applicant): that the discrimination at issue cannot be substantiated by these alleged financial troubles.
AP1 (Applicant): In fact, the surplus disappeared in the state budget and served as the financial basis of, for instance, the renovation or building a number of football stadiums and so on.
AP1 (Applicant): The above facts in themselves can be regarded as a prime facie violation of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): However, unfortunately, the situation is in fact much worse.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant, similarly to some 2,000 other Hungarian pensioners, was discriminated two different ways.
AP1 (Applicant): First of all, he was discriminated against in respect of those pensioners who continued working in the private sphere and who could and still can have their respective pension without any restriction whatsoever.
AP1 (Applicant): These pensions are naturally paid from the very same Hungarian pension fund the applicant's one is supposed to be paid from.
AP1 (Applicant): This fact constitutes in itself a prime facie discrimination of the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): However, the Hungarian legal regulation has an even more astonishing characteristic.
AP1 (Applicant): The law prescribing the total disbursement of pensions does not concern the entire population working in the public sphere, but there are some categories exempted from this regulation.
AP1 (Applicant): As the regulation indicates, just the categories concerned, but not those who are exempted, there is some uncertainty even at the government in respect of the categories exempted.
AP1 (Applicant): For instance, in point 26 of their memorial of 5 September 2016 to the court, even the government themselves admitted explicitly that ministers are exempted, while just a few weeks later in their submission of 30 September 2016, they stressed that all categories concerned are elected.
AP1 (Applicant): I would point out that ministers in Hungary have never ever been elected, in particular not since 2013 when the regulation at issue entered into force.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, in this latest submission of the government, nominates just two categories, namely members of parliament and mayors of municipal governments as exempted ones.
AP1 (Applicant): However, there are some more categories exempted from this legal regulation at issue.
AP1 (Applicant): For unknown reasons, this time not mentioned by the government at all.
AP1 (Applicant): In that respect, I would like to draw your attention to the report of the government, which is our attachment number one submitted to the court.
AP1 (Applicant): From this report to the government prepared by the Ministry of Justice in March 2016, it is perfectly clear that in fact there are several more categories exempted.
AP1 (Applicant): In Torelia, certain categories of judges, prosecutors and public officers employed who are not elected in Hungary either.
AP1 (Applicant): They are all nominated in different legally regulated procedures.
AP1 (Applicant): The above difference in treatment is purely arbitrary.
AP1 (Applicant): It has been not disputed by the government why members of parliament, mayors, members of local authorities, ministers and so on enjoying multiple remunerations should reserve their pension, whilst average public sphere workers like teachers, most of the judges, administrators and so on should not.
AP1 (Applicant): Even if all categories exempted from the above regulation would be elected, which is not the case, this still could not serve as a reasonable justification for the above difference in treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): Nevertheless, as we have seen, at least a few categories of those exempted from the regulation at issue are not elected.
AP1 (Applicant): For instance, ministers, certain categories of judges, prosecutors and public officers.
AP1 (Applicant): Another categorization could theoretically be based upon the distinction whether those who are exempted hold statuses regulated in the fundamental law as the Hungarian constitution at present is officially called.
AP1 (Applicant): However, we have to see it perfectly clear that a number of statuses are in fact regulated by the fundamental law, whilst the holders thereof are also deprived of their pension, for instance, most of the judges, public attorneys and so on.
AP1 (Applicant): Summing up the above categories, we must conclude that as far as the legal regulation at issue is concerned, we are unable to find any relevant category substantiating the present difference in treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): At least one part of pensioners belonging to each category is deprived of their pension, whilst on the other hand, the other part of the same population is not.
AP1 (Applicant): Accordingly, we can only conclude that the discrimination between the different groups of pensioners in the public sector is purely arbitrary and has nothing to do either with any legitimate aim or with any objective and reasonable justification.
AP1 (Applicant): Probably even the government themselves see this problem and that is the reason why in their observations submitted to the court relied on the alleged public sense of justice.
AP1 (Applicant): We have serious doubts whether such a vague and obscure principle could even theoretically serve as a reasonable justification of any discrimination.
AP1 (Applicant): It has however never been disputed even by the government that there has never been in Hungary any public debate in this respect, not even a simple public opinion research.
AP1 (Applicant): Accordingly, the government is not in a position to rely on any evidence whatsoever in that respect.
AP1 (Applicant): Nevertheless, it is well known from history that the public sense of justice, if there is any at all, can be very easily manipulated by the regime.
AP1 (Applicant): If the public sense of justice could be accepted as a legitimate ground or aim, any government could easily form the public feeling the way that is suitable for the regime's actual aims, irrespectively whether it is compatible with the obligations of the convention or other international covenants or not.
AP1 (Applicant): In this respect, I would draw attention also to the fact that the court found violation in the case of Heschman and Harrop versus the United Kingdom, judgment 25 November 1999.
AP1 (Applicant): In this case, conduct contra bonos mores, which was defined as behavior which is wrong rather than right in the judgment of the majority of contemporary fellow citizens, did not meet the requirement of foreseeability, see paragraphs 29 to 45.
AP1 (Applicant): Consequently, as far as a legitimate aim is concerned, such a referral casts serious doubts concerning the lawfulness of the measure in question.
AP1 (Applicant): Insofar, when I was speaking about the lack of a legitimate aim and the lack of an objective and reasonable justification in respect of the discrimination, both of them concerned the legal regulation at issue, namely the amendment of the Pension Act, Act 91 of 1997.
AP1 (Applicant): This Act gives a somewhat vague and obscure list.
AP1 (Applicant): However, due to the Act, it is perfectly clear that teachers, medical care employees, administrative officers, and so on, working in the public sector are not exempted from this list.
AP1 (Applicant): However, there is a further legal regulation in Hungary, namely Act 84 of 2003, which provides the theoretical opportunity to individual cases that the entire amount of pension suspended by the amendment of the Pension Act could be reimbursed from the same national budget.
AP1 (Applicant): Yes, Mr. President, members of the court, you understood it correctly.
AP1 (Applicant): The government deprives a particular group of people from their respective pension, in fact, take the money out of their packet, and to some of them, put it back to their same pocket.
AP1 (Applicant): Nobody in Hungary did know the exact amount of people concerned, as the selection was in each case merely individual.
AP1 (Applicant): The government prepared no public reports in respect of the number of public employees provided with this income support, as it is officially called, neither in respect of the relevant financial figures.
AP1 (Applicant): The ugly truth became clear to the applicant only from the above report to the government.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant submitted as attachment number two, the relevant parts of Act 84 of 2003 in respect of the health care activities.
AP1 (Applicant): Rules 16A to 16D thereof declare an opportunity for those employed in the health care field to recover the entire amount of pension suspended under the present legal regulation at issue in the official form of so-called income support.
AP1 (Applicant): In the legal regulation, this is a theoretical opportunity.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, the amount of the reimbursement is also vague, as it cannot be higher to the amount suspended.
AP1 (Applicant): However, from the report to the government prepared by the Ministry of Justice, submitted to the court as attachment number one of the present hearing, it became perfectly clear that in practice, the reimbursement, the so-called income support, is not just a theoretical opportunity, but the general practice, and the amount thereof is in each case equal to the pension suspended.
AP1 (Applicant): From this report, it became clear to the applicant that despite the approximately 4,000 people concerned officially by the total disbursement of pensions, in reality, this measure infected just half of this population, as the pension of all ever was compensated by the government as income support, and all health care pensioners were reimbursed their entire amount of pension.
AP1 (Applicant): I would like to make it perfectly clear that is not the reimbursement of pensions in respect of the health care pensioners, which the applicant considers intolerable under the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): What is in fact intolerable is the totally arbitrary nature of the discrimination.
AP1 (Applicant): The government first discriminate between the public and private employees by suspending the pension only of the public employees, then create artificially two groups within public employees and grant to one of these groups their entire respective pension, whilst confiscate the total respective pension of the other.
AP1 (Applicant): Even without any further discrimination, the above situation constitutes a prima facie violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,
AP1 (Applicant): taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): However, as we have seen, there is a third discrimination, even within the latter group, as due to the report, it became clear that the government exempt particular persons or groups in a procedure which is anything but transparent.
AP1 (Applicant): This discrimination can only be regarded as totally arbitrary, and it constitutes, even in itself, a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): The above facts could be one of the reasons why the government provided the Honorable Court with totally divergent and inconsistent figures regarding the real impact of the legal regulation at issue on the national budget.
AP1 (Applicant): In this respect, the applicant would like to draw the attention of the Honorable Court to the fact that whilst the government, in their memorial of 5 September 2016, stressed that due to the present legal regulations at issue, the total savings between March 2013 and August 2016 amounted to some 30.6 billion Hungarian forints, this calculation and figures indicated on pages 16 to 19 are totally misleading.
AP1 (Applicant): In order to substantiate this statement, I would refer again to the report to the government, referred to as Attachment No. 1, from which it is perfectly clear that in fact these figures are not valid.
AP1 (Applicant): Just as an example, I would rely on the year 2015.
AP1 (Applicant): In that respect, the government stressed on page No. 18 of their memorial that the savings of this particular year
AP1 (Applicant): amounted to almost 9.5 billion Hungarian forints.
AP1 (Applicant): However, in the report to the government, the Ministry of Justice stressed that in fact the savings amounted in 2015 not even to 4.3 billion Hungarian forints, namely much less than half of the official figure.
AP1 (Applicant): In point 43 of the memorial, even the government themselves referred to the fact that the above amount of savings are to be deducted by the amount reimbursed by the National Health Fund to those public employees who work in the healthcare field.
AP1 (Applicant): This part of the memorial is, however, somewhat ambiguous and the figures turn to be more and more chaotic.
AP1 (Applicant): For instance, the government themselves state that the amount of some 30.6 billion Hungarian forints
AP1 (Applicant): calculated at the end of their memorial is to be deducted by the above compensation, however, failed to inform the Honorable Court in respect of the real figures concerned.
AP1 (Applicant): At this point, I would draw the attention of the Honorable Court that insofar the government have relied on a number of figures as alleged savings due to the legal regulations at issue, however, all figures are totally inconsistent even regarding a specific year.
AP1 (Applicant): Nevertheless, just one thing became from Attachment No. 1, the report to the government, perfectly clear,
AP1 (Applicant): namely that from approximately 2 million Hungarian pensioners, the impugned low at issue in fact concerns just 2,000 people, just an extremely small minority.
AP1 (Applicant): The government allege if the pensions suspended by the present legal regulation at issue should be paid to the persons concerned, it would have serious impact on the Hungarian budget.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, members of the Court, if this story were not such a sad one depriving some 2,000 old Hungarian pensioners,
AP1 (Applicant): including the applicant, from their entire respective pension, I would rather say that this statement is simply ridiculous.
AP1 (Applicant): In fact, while the government tries to convince the Honorable Court in respect of the allegedly serious impact of the present case to the budget, on the other hand, the government spent in the recent years fortunes on futile projects, for example, they spent within some years 307 billion Hungarian forints just to build and renew football stadiums.
AP1 (Applicant): All these stadiums are in fact empty due to the long and deep crisis of the Hungarian football.
AP1 (Applicant): Accordingly, it is almost totally irrelevant whether we speak about 4 or 9 billion Hungarian forints, as just for these stadiums the government spent some 100 times more.
AP1 (Applicant): When stressing that the abolishment of the present discriminatory regulation at issue would cause serious impact on the budget, the government also stated that the Chamber judgment in its present form might entail serious consequences concerning the social security system of a number of member states.
AP1 (Applicant): The government also stated that there was a number of Council of Europe member states having identical or similar legal regulations in their respective national law, provided that the person concerned is simultaneously in receipt of a salary and pension, for instance, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Romania, Greece, Iceland, Slovakia, and so on.
AP1 (Applicant): As a consequence, the Court requested the government to submit evidence related to the alleged similarities between the Hungarian measures and those applied in the other member states.
AP1 (Applicant): As the outcome of this comparison, it became perfectly clear that among the member states of the Council of Europe, there is no state whatsoever having not just an identical but even a little bit similar legal restriction, in particular, there does not even exist any similar discrimination.
AP1 (Applicant): This fact is substantiated also by the neutral and thorough third-party submissions of the European Trade Union Confederation.
AP1 (Applicant): Accordingly, the allegation of the government, namely that the present case involves a serious issue of general importance due to the repercussion in many other member states, has in fact nothing to do with the truth and reality.
AP1 (Applicant): I would briefly reflect on the question related to the problem whether the six-month rule was observed concerning the complaint against the discrimination between various types of civil servants.
AP1 (Applicant): First, I note that the applicant in his original application complained about the discrimination against civil servants in general.
AP1 (Applicant): He asked for the Court's examination concerning the whole legal shame in question as such.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the alleged violation of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention,
AP1 (Applicant): in page 7, paragraph 1, the applicant gave an indicative enumeration of the possible grounds of discrimination.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, still in that respect, in page 8, paragraph 2, the applicant also stressed that pension is disbursed by the present amendment of law only regarding a specifically defined group of individuals.
AP1 (Applicant): Later, in his counter-observations before the Chamber, he simply developed further his arguments concerning the discrimination, which has several branches in the present case.
AP1 (Applicant): However, it is important for us to see that these branches belong to the same tree, both from factual and legal point of view.
AP1 (Applicant): In these circumstances, he cannot be classified as not bringing, at least in substance, his claim before the Court within the six-month time limit.
AP1 (Applicant): I nevertheless disagree with the government as to the continuous nature of the prejudice caused.
AP1 (Applicant): The present case can easily be distinguished from the case law quoted by the government, as in the present case the infringement occurred repeatedly every month, each time when the applicant did not receive his due pension.
AP1 (Applicant): Such a situation, however, does not last practically forever.
AP1 (Applicant): In fact, it lasts only until the termination of the employment, exactly as it occurred also in the applicant's case.
AP1 (Applicant): This is a second type of the notion of a continuous violation, completely different from losing fishing rights or legitimate expectation to pursue certain economic activities.
AP1 (Applicant): In this respect, I would moreover point out that, as admitted by the government as well, the pension authority issued also decisions in respect of the yearly increasing of the applicant's pension due to the fact that he continued working.
AP1 (Applicant): According to these decisions, his pension increased by 0.5 percent each year.
AP1 (Applicant): This is a clear evidence that there was no final decision or legal act in this respect, as the State was permanently active, provided the applicant with information letters in respect of the increasing of his pension, and also decisions each year regarding his pension suspended by law.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, in the present case, the observance of the six-month rule should be established.
AP1 (Applicant): In this respect, I draw attention to the fact that, to my best knowledge, there are hundreds of similar cases pending before the Court, which complaints raise similar issues of discrimination, including the discrimination between different types of civil servants.
AP1 (Applicant): If the Court decides to strike this question, this time out of the scope of examination, it would go against, at least to a certain extent, the principle of the effective protection of the Conventional rights, since, if this serious issue will not be answered now, only in a later occasion, the effective protection of the rights in question is somewhat weakened.
AP1 (Applicant): Both in their request, the case to be transferred before the Grand Chamber, and in their memorial, the Government stressed that the facts of the present case are, in practical terms, identical with those of the Panfila v. Romania judgment.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, Members of the Court, I would not reiterate all the four important grounds described in my memorial,
AP1 (Applicant): on which the present case is, in fact, to be distinguished from the Panfila one.
AP1 (Applicant): Nevertheless, there is a ground which is in particular important, namely the lack of a financial crisis.
AP1 (Applicant): The legal regulations governing the Panfila case aimed at handling a deep financial crisis.
AP1 (Applicant): This financial crisis did not exist in the present case at all.
AP1 (Applicant): Moreover, I would also note that not just the Ombudsman requested the Constitutional Court to abolish this particular regulation, but also the Hungarian Supreme Court itself.
AP1 (Applicant): I enclose this attachment number 4 summary, published by the Press Secretariat of the Curia, as the Hungarian Supreme Court is now called, which is based upon a number of particular Supreme Court decisions.
AP1 (Applicant): These decisions suspended cases and transferred them to the Constitutional Court, relying on the unconstitutional nature of the present legal regulations at issue.
AP1 (Applicant): The summary issued by the Curia is an evidence that even the Curia found the legal regulations at issue contrary to the fundamental law.
AP1 (Applicant): As a consequence of the unconstitutional nature of the impugned law, detailed in the present summary, the Supreme Court, similarly to the Ombudsman, also initiated a procedure before the Constitutional Court, which is still pending as well.
AP1 (Applicant): Summing up the above-mentioned arguments briefly, in my view, the Chamber judgment of the Court should be upheld as the applicant was in fact discriminated against in respect of the disbursement of his pension, and as the case can and should, on several grounds, be distinguished from the Panfila one.
AP1 (Applicant): Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, Honorable Members of the Court, thank you for your attention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Grád.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Now I call Mr. Tallódi.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, Honorable Members of the Court, Ladies and Gentlemen,
GR1 (Government): It is a privilege and a pleasure to have the opportunity to appear before the Court to present the oral submissions on behalf of the Government in Hungary.
GR1 (Government): Let me start with a brief description of the origin and the purpose of pension systems in general, and the major characteristics and relevant developments in the Hungarian pension system in particular.
GR1 (Government): Pension systems were originally established for the purpose of providing a security of livelihood after retirement from work at old age when workers were no longer able to provide for their means of subsistence by working.