TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): However, they are not in the same position as all other civil servants since their status is the result of the impossibility to reinstate them in their former positions after then unlawful dismissal, and they do not receive their full salaries.
GR1 (Government): Such circumstances justify their different treatment for the purposes of the legislation complained of.
GR1 (Government): There are further categories of persons who do receive salaries from the public budget, but are not in the status of public servants.
GR1 (Government): Among them are members of Parliament and mayors who are not subject to the restriction complained of.
GR1 (Government): However, they are not in the same position as public servants because they are elected public officials and an encouragement of the resignation from office in line with one of the complex purposes of the legislation complained of would constitute an interference with their right to stand for election, as well as the right to free elections of their electorate.
GR1 (Government): Contrary to the Chamber's findings, government ministers are not exempted from this role.
GR1 (Government): The final category of public employees not subject to the restriction under 83C of the Pension Act is the group of those employees who are employed under the rules of the Labour Code for tasks not related to the exercise of public powers.
GR1 (Government): They are, however, not subject to the same legal protection and ethical requirements as various categories of public servants are, and this is not a typical form of employment of pensioners in the public sector.
GR1 (Government): Other contracts can also be concluded for atypical, such as part-time work, which is only exceptionally available to civil servants, typically to mothers with small children.
GR1 (Government): In sum, when two groups of people are not in comparable situations from all relevant aspects of the aims of the measure complained of, no issue of discrimination between them can arise.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, Honourable Members of the Court, Ladies and Gentlemen, In light of the effort
GR1 (Government): cited, I respectfully ask the Court to conclude that, insofar as the application is admissible, there has been no violation of the applicants' rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of
GR1 (Government): the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14, and to reject the applicants' highly excessive claims for just satisfaction, which cannot be regarded as necessarily incurred or reasonable as to quantum.
GR1 (Government): That concludes what I wish to say at this stage.
GR1 (Government): May I thank you, Mr. President and Members of the Court, for listening to me so patiently
GR1 (Government): and attentively.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mr. Tallódi.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I thank both parties for their submissions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Now I invite my colleagues, judges of the Grand Chamber, to put to the parties the questions they may have.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Judge López Guerra please.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Yeah, just two brief questions, mainly to the government concerning the status of civil servants in Hungary.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): The first one, do the professional civil servants are recruited, hired freely by the government or by the authorities, or they must pass some kind of a competitive process of selections by means of examinations or other ways of appraising the merit and value?
Luis López Guerra (Judge): And the second question refers to this missile.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): Do the professional civil servants have tenure?
Luis López Guerra (Judge): That is to say, they have the expectation of employment stability for their active life unless there are specific reasons for this missile, or they are considering this missile in the same circumstances as the employees in the private sector applying the general labor law.
Luis López Guerra (Judge): These are my two questions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much. Judge Koskelo, please.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): I would like to ask the following two questions.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): I understand that these questions are addressed to both parties.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): I understand that the applicant was eligible for early retirement because he had, at the age of 47, completed 30 years of service.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): If this was the case, was the same regime of early retirement also applicable to employees in the private sector?
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): Or was this only applicable to those who worked in the public sector?
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): Or was it perhaps so that certain categories of employees in the private sector only were entitled to the same kind of early retirement on the basis of completion of 30 years of service?
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): The second question I would like to ask is the following.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): For the applicant, the disbursements of his pension payments were suspended on the 1st of July 2013 and onwards because of the employment status that he had at that point in time.
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): What would have happened if he had subsequently moved to be employed in the private sector?
Pauliine Koskelo (Judge): Would the pension payments have been resumed if he had began to work in the private sector instead after the 1st of July 2013?
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Dirty Vehabović, please.
Faris Vehabović (Judge): Thank you. Just one simple question.
Faris Vehabović (Judge): If the applicant, as an early retired person, pays additional contribution to the pension fund during his work in civil service, will he at the end receive a higher pension due to that additional contribution to the pension fund?
Faris Vehabović (Judge): Thank you.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Judge O'Leary, please.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): My questions complement those of Judge Koskelo and Judge Vehabović.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The government has informed us that the applicant was the beneficiary of an early retirement scheme.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): But as such, was he entitled to retire at the age of 47, or was he obliged to do so?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And if he wasn't obliged to do so, does that mean that he could have continued to work until the statutory retirement age, which I understand was approximately 62 years and six months?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The next question relates to the question asked by Judge Vehabović.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): I'd like you to clarify, I understood the respondent government's submissions as being that neither the applicant as an employee nor his public sector employer made any additional contributions which led to this entitlement to an early retirement pension.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): If, in response to Judge Koskelo's question, it transpired that private sector employees could also benefit from early retirement, I'd like you to clarify whether a private sector employee or a private sector employer would have to make additional contributions in order to cover the longer disbursement of the pension.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): My third question is purely factual, but as some people have already indicated, there are some factual omissions in the file.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): The applicant retired from his first public sector job in the year 2000, and then we're informed that he began working again in the public sector in 2012, if I'm not mistaken.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): Did he work between 2000 and 2012?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And if so, in which sector?
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): And finally, my fourth question is a more general one.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): In its decision in a case called E.B. against Hungary, decided in 2013, this court has already examined the two mandatory pillars of the Hungarian pension system, which were established in 1998 with the second pillar abolished in 2010.
Síofra O’Leary (Judge): My question is, does this reform of the pension system and the change in its structure and organization have any relevance in the present case?
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much. Now Judge Grozev, please.
Yonko Grozev (Judge): My question is with respect to both parties, and it is a follow-up on questions that have already been asked.
Yonko Grozev (Judge): And it is, could you clarify the type of contributions given to the pensions fund by the applicant and his employer prior to 2000, when he became eligible to early retirement, and compare them to someone situated in a similar position in the private sector?
Yonko Grozev (Judge): Thank you.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much, judge Turković.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): I would just like to follow up to the question by Judge Koskelo when she asked what would happen if he would move from the public sector to the private sector.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): And for me it's interesting also what would happen with the person who worked prior to the private sector and then started to work in the private sector after this early retirement and then would move to the public sector.
Ksenija Turković (Judge): Would the person then lose the pension?
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Judge Griţco, please.
Valeriu Griţco (Judge): Thank you.
Valeriu Griţco (Judge): I have a question to the government.
Valeriu Griţco (Judge): So I'd like to know if there is a policy in Hungary in order to assure a fair balance between generations in the public as well as in the private sector, in particular with the aim to promote better access to employment by means of a better distribution of work between the generations, and to regulate the labor market, in particular for the purposes of Urban unemployment.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Judge Sajó, please.
András Sajó (Judge): In order to have very clear information on a matter that was already asked twice, could the applicant inform us what was the basis, the legal basis of early retirement, because there are so many, or there were so many under Hungarian law?
András Sajó (Judge): Second, do I understand correctly the government that there are possibilities to be employed in the public sector on part-time basis, even if someone is pensioner, and to keep the pension benefits at the same time?
András Sajó (Judge): As well as, is it possible to have a legal relationship in the public sector under other forms of, under other laws, namely under the civil code, under mandate, or undertaking?
András Sajó (Judge): And I ask this because the applicant claimed that there is a number of employees whose status is not explained, who receive pension benefit and are employed.
András Sajó (Judge): And we don't know the reason, other than for the health sector, why, what is the legal basis of they being in the public sector, although they are in pension?
András Sajó (Judge): And finally, do I understand correctly that between 2007 and the 2013 June change, the applicant did contribute to the pension fund, or was his salary exempt of pension contribution in that period?
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much. There are no more questions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The court will now rise for, say, 30 minutes, so we will resume at 5 to 11, following which the parties will return for a second round of short pleadings to respond to the submissions in the first round and to the judges' questions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The hearing is now suspended.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The hearing is now resumed.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): And I call Mr. Grád, please.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, Honorable Members of the Court, we tried to do our best to reply to all questions
AP1 (Applicant): that were lodged. However, I am not sure we will have time to answer all of them. I will
AP1 (Applicant): try to do it as briefly as I can.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the questions of Judge López Guerra, there is no compulsory competition as a general rule in Hungary. There are generally interviews instead, which are not the same.
AP1 (Applicant): As to his second question, there was a time when there was reasonable career security for civil servants, but it was changed without giving reasons for which this Court found violating the Convention in judgment KMC versus Hungary. Accordingly, that has been found
AP1 (Applicant): a violation of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the questions of Judge Costello, there was a possibility in the private sector for that what she was asking. The second question, if someone moves to the private sector, the
AP1 (Applicant): disbursement of his or her pension automatically resumes.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the questions of Judge O'Leary, first, early retirement is optional, both in public and private sector. Second question, additional contribution is to be paid, both in private
AP1 (Applicant): and public sector.
AP1 (Applicant): In 2003, the applicant worked almost his entire life in the public sector, but between 2000 and 2012. Originally, the applicant worked as a professional police officer. However,
AP1 (Applicant): after early retirement, between 2000 and 2012, he worked in the private sector and he paid also contribution as a private sector employee to the pension fund.
AP1 (Applicant): Question four, there is no relevance whatsoever of the legal reform of 1998 in the present case, and I would note that not even the government themselves has insofar alleged somewhat like that.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the question of Judge Turkovic, yes, his pension would be immediately suspended, I mean the applicant's pension, would be immediately suspended in case of his moving to the private sector.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the questions of Mr. Sajó.
András Sajó (Judge): Do we understand correctly what you said, that in case the person goes to the private sector, his pension will be suspended? Is his pension suspended in case he works in the private sector?
András Sajó (Judge): You said it is suspended in case he returns to the private sector. Is this the case?
András Sajó (Judge): Yes.
AP1 (Applicant): Probably that was a misunderstanding. Whenever someone employed in the private sector
AP1 (Applicant): starts working in the public sector, immediately and automatically loses his right to the pension.
AP1 (Applicant): And vice versa is the same if someone from the public sector goes to the private sector.
AP1 (Applicant): He or she has the right again to have his pension and it will not be suspended anymore.
AP1 (Applicant): I would also note that, unfortunately, maybe there were some misunderstandings in respect of our submissions.
AP1 (Applicant): I apologize for that.
AP1 (Applicant): And if our submissions concerning the abolishment of the pension ceiling was unclear, I would clarify it.
AP1 (Applicant): To be clear, the ceiling on pension contribution was quashed, but it resulted in the quashing of the de facto ceiling of top amount pensions as well.
AP1 (Applicant): The reason thereof was that before the abolishment of the ceiling, the pension fund did not pay higher amount to the particular persons that could be calculated on the maximum contribution.
AP1 (Applicant): Since the maximum is not capped anymore, logically, the pensions can go higher.
AP1 (Applicant): I would also briefly reflect on what the respected government agent was telling to the court on this hearing.
AP1 (Applicant): First of all, I would note that section 83.3 of the present
AP1 (Applicant): legal regulation at issue was introduced in order to ensure a more fair distribution of funds.
AP1 (Applicant): That was what he told us.
AP1 (Applicant): In fact, it is unfortunately not true at all.
AP1 (Applicant): In fact, this section, 83.3, caused a very strict injustice
AP1 (Applicant): in that respect in distribution of pensions, as insofar the government still has not given any proper reason why, for instance, health care employees should receive their entire pension, whilst other pensioners continuing working in the public sphere are not able to do that.
AP1 (Applicant): So this regulation is anything but fair and anything but serving the fair distribution of the public funds.
AP1 (Applicant): If I understood it correctly, the government stated that only elected persons are concerned.
AP1 (Applicant): However, in their appendix to the report prepared by the Ministry of Justice, it is perfectly clear that not just elected persons are concerned.
AP1 (Applicant): A number of other persons, public officers, and so on, who have never, ever been elected, are also concerned.
AP1 (Applicant): It was mentioned also by the government that Mr. Fabian was an early pension retirement person.
AP1 (Applicant): I think that actually it has nothing to do with the present case.
AP1 (Applicant): He was supposed to be an early pension retiree.
AP1 (Applicant): He was supposed to be a pensioner who had been working in the public sphere for a long time.
AP1 (Applicant): He was supposed to be an early retirement person due to the acts and the legal regulations of Hungary at that relevant time.
AP1 (Applicant): He is not responsible for the legal regulations.
AP1 (Applicant): He was allowed to have an early retirement due to the legal regulations of Hungary.
AP1 (Applicant): It is not his fault.
AP1 (Applicant): And actually, he continued working in the private sphere, paid contributions to the pension fund.
AP1 (Applicant): Accordingly, I don't think that the government could adequately rely on the lack of contributions on behalf of my client in that respect.
AP1 (Applicant): And I do not think that the applicant has ever been in a similar or analogous situation as all other types of public servants mentioned by the government.
AP1 (Applicant): Actually, this problem can be raised between any different individuals.
AP1 (Applicant): There are no two identical individuals as such.
AP1 (Applicant): However, it does not create an objective and reasonable justification of such a distinction.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, honorable members of the court,
AP1 (Applicant): thank you for your attention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Mr. Grad. I call Mr. Tallódi, please.
GR1 (Government): We would like to answer the questions by topics.
GR1 (Government): The questions concerning the status of civil servants, we would like to add that there are several categories of civil servants in Hungary, all with different set of rights and obligations.
GR1 (Government): As regards recruitment, the practice differs by each employer.
GR1 (Government): Generally, there is a public call for competition, but there may be exemptions.
GR1 (Government): As regards dismissal, their common feature is that they are less easily dismissed, and they still have a very good chance of winning a court action in case of their dismissal for its unlawfulness.
GR1 (Government): Concerning the early retirement schemes, we would like to add that the applicant earned his entitlement to service pension in public service, which was naturally available only in public service.
GR1 (Government): There were also grounds for early retirement for certain occupations originating in the communist era when everything was public sector and becoming private sector only after 1990.
GR1 (Government): These grounds were abolished in 1997, with the effect from 2001.
GR1 (Government): No additional contributions were paid by these groups and the employer either.
GR1 (Government): Here, I would also like to refer to my presentation to the effect that employment and social policy intermingled to a great extent in the regulation of pension benefits to the detriment of the contributory nature of the pension system.
GR1 (Government): Concerning the aims of the measures in terms of intergenerational justice, I would like to add that the measure complained of had complex aims and purposes.
GR1 (Government): One of them was to encourage retirement of old-age pensions from public service and give way to employment of younger generation.
GR1 (Government): There has indeed been an increase of employment of younger people in the public sector, but having regard to the complexity of the phenomenon, the government cannot conclude with certainty that it has a strong correlation with the measure complained of.
GR1 (Government): I also would like to add that the applicant was not obliged to retire at the age of 47, and the payment of pension contributions after work as a pensioner was not dependent upon the public or private nature of the employer.
GR1 (Government): The applicant was not obliged to and didn't pay pension contributions between 2001 and 2007.
GR1 (Government): After 2007, he paid preferential rate pension contributions, changing continuously, and received the corresponding increase of his pension in accordance with Section 22A of the Pension Act.
GR1 (Government): As to the employment of pensioners in the public sector in part-time employment, I submit that it is not excluded by law, but it is not typical.
GR1 (Government): The proportion of employees in public service who can be employed under the rules of the labor code is limited by law to 10% of the staff and to posts not related to the exercise of public powers.
GR1 (Government): These employees do not enjoy the same protection in case of dismissal and are not subject to the rules of ethics applicable to civil servants, since they are not civil servants.
GR1 (Government): Part-time work is very rare in Hungary, and it is so also in the public sector as well.
GR1 (Government): Under the labor code, employees can be lawfully dismissed when they are already entitled to receive pension, and thus the employment policy aims of the measure complained of are not relevant to this group.
GR1 (Government): The question concerning what would have happened if the applicant moved to the private sector, the answer is that the disbursement of his pension would have been resumed as soon as he informed the pension authority.
GR1 (Government): As old-age pensioner, although underage, but legally qualifying as old-age pensioner for purposes of Section 83B of the Pension Act, he would not be subject to an income ceiling.
GR1 (Government): Other early retirement pensioners are subject to that ceiling in both the private and the public sector.
GR1 (Government): These distinctions are justified by complex aims of employment and social policy.
GR1 (Government): Finally, I note that the abolishment of compulsory private pension element of the pension system examined in AB versus Hungary isn't relevant in the present case.
GR1 (Government): It was the case of Markovic and others versus Hungary which raised more similar items.
GR1 (Government): Lastly, only one short comment concerning the government report which was submitted by the applicant as evidence.
GR1 (Government): And we know that this confidential material doesn't reflect the position of the government because this document wasn't adopted by the government.
GR1 (Government): It was prepared for the government reflecting some experts' opinions so none of its statements can be taken on its face value.
GR1 (Government): Thank you very much for your kind attention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mr. Tallódi. We have now come to the end of the hearing.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The parties will be informed on the date of delivery.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): Please be seated.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the admissibility and merits in the case of Abu Zubaydah versus Lithuania.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 14 July 2011 under Article 34 of the Convention by a stateless Palestinian, Mr. Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, also known as Abu Zubaydan.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): The case was initially allocated to the second section of the court and communicated to the government on 14 December 2012.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): After the decomposition of the court sections on 1 November 2015, the application was assigned to the first section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court.
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (JudgeP): The case was assigned to a chamber of the first section pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 2.