Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19850304-1067183
Timestamp: 2016-12-07 16:29:17+00:00

Document:
T. c. SUEDE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche T. c. SUEDE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Radiation du rôle (solution du litige)Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10671/83Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1985-03-04;10671.83 Analyses : (Art. 13) DROIT A UN RECOURS EFFECTIF, (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 3) PEINE DEGRADANTE, (Art. 3) PEINE INHUMAINEParties : Demandeurs : T.Défendeurs : SUEDETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 10671/83 T . v/SWEDE N T . c/SUEDE DECISION of 4 March 1985 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 4 mars 1985 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Arficle I o(the First Prolocol : Even assuming that the provision guarantees to contributars to a social insurance sistem the right to derive benefit from the system, it cannot be ituerpreted as giving a right to a pension of a panicular amount. 7hc right ro a pension based on employvnem nmy, in certain circuntstances, be assimilated to a proprietorial right, even if the pension i,vas ftrmnced by the employer pursuant to the contract of employment . The co-ordirtation of tnvo pensions in order to prevent cumulation of social benefits does not violate the riglu to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, even where one of the iwo pensions is reduced . Article 1 du Protocole additionnel : MÃ©me si l'on adnter que cette disposition garantit Ã ceu.r qui ont versÃ© des contributions Ã une institution d'assurance sociale le droit de tirer un bÃ©nÃ©fice de cette institution, elle ne peut Ãªtre interprÃ©tÃ©e comme donnant droit Ã une rente d'un montant dÃ©terminÃ© . Le droit Ã une pension, fondA sur l'emploi, peut, dans cenaines circonstances, Ã©tre assimilÃ©Ã un droit de propriÃ©tÃ©, mÃ©me si cette pension, en venu du contrat de travail a Ã©tÃ© financÃ©e par l'employeur . N'est pas contraire au droit au respect des biens la coordioation de deu,r pensions, mÃªme comportant rÃ©duction de l'une ou l'autre, afin d'Ã©viter un cumul de prestations sociales.
THE FACTS ((ranÃ§ais : voir p . 233) The facts of the case, as they appear from the applicant's submissions, may be summarised as follows . The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1917 and resident at K . He is retired . The applicant was employed by the Swedish Railways (statens jdrnvdgar) . During his period of employment, of about 40 years, he subscribed to a pension scheme which gave him a right to a state pension . According to the agreement he was entitled to a pension of two thirds of his final salary . The applicant took early retirement and was granted a state pension in advance, as well as an old age pension in advance under the social insurance system, as from I April 1980 . The applicant's salary for March 1980 was in the amount of 6,000 Crowns per month . As from March 1982, when the applicant attained the age of 65 years, his state pension rights were "co-ordinated" with the social insurance benefits (old age pension etc) . This meant that his state pension was reduced . Thus for February 1982 the applicant had received 8,625 Crowns and for March 1982 he received 4,945 Crowns monthly . The applicant has requested non-co-ordination of the state pension and the social insurance benefits . This request was examined by the Government . In the proceedings before the Government, an opinion was obtained from the State Salary and Pension Authority (statens lone-och pensionsverk) . This opinion, dated 24 March 1983, states : "(The applicant) receives as from I April 1980 state pension (old age pension) according to the general pension agreement for State-employed and certain other civil servants . This comprises the provisions of the State's general service pension rules (SPR) . He also receives old age pension (in advance) under the Act on Social Insurance (AFL) from the said date . The introduction in 1960 of the general additional pension (ATP) and certain subsequent improvements of the social insurance system has had as a result that within the pensioning of the personnel the principle is generally accepted that the personnel pension should be a complement to the social insurance benefits . Without such co-ordination between the personnel pension and the social insurance benefits the result would be that in the majority of cases the cumulative benefits would exceed what the pensioner had received in salary when he was working actively . Such a result would obviously be unreasonable, even more so since it is the employer who pays the fees for the ATP pension 230
and the greater part of the public pension . In order to achieve co-ordination a choice has had to be made between two different systems, viz . a net system and a gross system . A net system means that an additional pension, based on certain ftxed provisions, is paid as an addition to the social insurance benefits . . . In a gross system the gross amount is determined, in which the social insurance benefits, deducted to the same extent as the gross pension, are included . Coordination is made so that the personnel pension in each case and at any moment is estimated in such a way that together with the social insurance benefits it attains at least a certain applicable gross amount for the pensioner . The difference between the gross amount and the social insurance benefits is called complementary pension . In this context regard is had to the old age pension and ATP in the amounts which would have been paid had they been requested from the month in which the pensioner attained the age of 65 . (The applicant's) complementary pension corresponds to about 20% of the gross amount . For different reasons the gross system has been chosen within the pension scheme for state employees, after consultations with the employees' trade unions . The provisions on co-ordination are contained in Section 6 of SPR and Section 4 of the Addendum to SPR . According to the general pension agreement, these provisions apply to state employees and certain other civil servants . This agreement applied to (the applicant) when he left his post . The co-ordination with ATP and the old age pension has been done in full conformity with the applicable provisions . (The applicant's) request ought therefore not give rise to any measures by the Government . " The Government ( civildeparrementet) rejected the applicant's request on 2 June 1983 .
COMPLAINT S The applicant complains that he has been deprived of part of his pension rights in breach of his contracts with his employer . He alleges a breach of the Swedish law and of Article I of Protocol No . I . He also alleges discrimination .
THE LA W The applicant has complained that he does not receive full pension in accordance with the agreement he had with his employer- the Swedish railways . He alleges a breach of Article I of Protocol No . 1 . A question may be raised as to whether the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint as required by Article 26 of the Convention .
However, the Commission does not find it necessary to analyse this question in more depth since the application is in any case inadmissible for the following reasons . The Commission recalls its constant case-law, according to which the right to a pension is not as such guaranteed by the Convention . At the same time the Commission has frequently held that the payment of contributions to a pension fund may in certain circumstances create a property right in a portion of such a fund and a modification of the pension rights under such a system could therefore in principle raise an issue under Article I of Protocol No 1 . The Commission has added, however, that "even if it is assumed that Article I of Protocol No . I guarantees persons who have paid contributions to a special insurance system the right to derive benefit from the system, it cannot be interpreted as entitling that person to a pension of a particular amount" (see MÃ¼ller v . Austria, Comm . Report 1 .10 .75, para . 30, D .R . 3 p . 25) . The Commission also considers that the right to a pension which is based on employment can in certain circumstances be assimilated to a property right, and this can be the case, whether special contributions have been paid or the employer has given a more general undertaking to pay a pension on conditions which can be considered to be part of the employment contract . The Commission recalls that when the applicant took early retirement from his employment he eamed around 6,000 Crowns monthly . He then benefited from his State pension and old age pension under the social security system until he attained the age of 65 . In Febrvary 1982 he received 8,625 Crowns . When he reached the age of 65 his State pension was co-ordinated with the social insurance benefits the result being a reduction of his total benefits . As from March 1982 he received 4,945 Crowns a month . The applicant in essence asks for full benefits both from the social insurance system and from the State pension . It followed from the legal provisions applicable to Swedish State employees that there should be a co-ordination of the benefits under the state pension scheme and those guaranteed under the social security system so as to avoid that the total pension would be too high when compared with the salary which had been paid to the employee when he was in active service . The Commission does not consider that the authorities, when applying those rules to the applicant's case, can be considered to have deprived him of a property right which he had previously had . If the applicant's submissions were to be accepted, he would be entitled to full social insurance benefits from the state and full State pension from his employer (which was the State through Swedish Railways) . The Commission finds it without reproach under Article I of Protocol No . I that a co-ordination is made between the social benefits and the pension benefits . Having regard to the above considerations the Commission finds that there is no appearance of a violation of Article I of Protocol No . I, nor of any other Articles of the Convention .
(/'RADUCTION)
EN FAIT Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ressortent des observations prÃ©sentÃ©es par le requÃ©rant, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit . Le requÃ©mnt est un ressortissant suÃ©dois, nÃ© en 1917 et habitant Ã K . Il est retraitÃ© . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© salariÃ© des Chemins de fer suÃ©dois (starens Jamvagar) pendant une quarantaine d'annÃ©es, durant lesquelles il a cotisÃ© Ã un rÃ©ginie de pensions lui ouvrant droit Ã une retraite de l'Etat . Aux termes de l'accord, il avait droit Ã une pension Ã©gale aux deux tiers de son dernier salaire . Le requÃ©rant prit sa retraite anticipÃ©e et se vit accorder, Ã partir du 1Â° avril 1980 et par anticipation, une pension de l'Etat, ainsi qu'une pension de vieillesse au titre du rÃ©gime des assurances sociales . En mars 1980, le salaire du requÃ©rant Ã©tait de 6 .000 couronnes par mois . A partir de mars 1982, lorsque le requÃ©rant eut atteint l'Ã ge de 65 ans, ses droits Ã la pension d'Etat furent .coordonnÃ©s â¢ avec les prestations sociales (pension de vieillesse, etc .) . Ceci se traduisit par une rÃ©duction de la pension : pour fÃ©vrier 1982, le requÃ©rant avait reÃ§u 8 .625 couronnes mais Ã partir de mars 1982, il ne perÃ§ut plus que 4 .945 couronnes par mois . Le requÃ©rant demanda que la pension d'Etat et les prestations sociales ne soient plus coordonnÃ©es .
Cette demande fut examinÃ©e par l'administration qui sollicita l'avis du Service des salaires et pensions de l'Etat (statens ldne-och pensionsverk) . L'avis donnÃ© le 24 mars 198 3 est le suivant : - (Le requÃ©rant) reÃ§oit, depuis le IÂ°' avril 19 80, une pension de l'Etat (pension de vieillesse) conformÃ©ment Ã l'accord gÃ©nÃ©ral sur les pensions des salariÃ©s de l'Etat et certains autres fonctionnaires, qui comprend Ã©galement les dispositions du RÃ¨glement gÃ©nÃ©ral des pensions de l'Etat (SPR) . Depuis cette m@me date, l'intÃ©ressÃ© perÃ§oit Ã©galement par anticipation une pension de vieillesse, conformÃ©ment Ã la loi sur les assurances sociales (AFL) . L'introduction en 1960 de la retraite complÃ©mentaire gÃ©nÃ©rale (ATP) et de certaines amÃ©liorations ultÃ©rieures du rÃ©gime des assurances sociales a eu pour effet que, dans le cadre de la mise Ã la retraite du personnel, le principe est gÃ©nÃ©ralement admis que la pension versÃ©e au personnel doit Ã©tre un complÃ©ment aux prestations des assurances sociales . Sans cette coordination entre retraite du personnel et prestations des assurances sociales, le rÃ©sultat serait que, dans la majoritÃ© des cas, les prestations cumulÃ©es dÃ©passeraient ce que le retraitÃ© percevait en salaire lorsqu'il Ã©tait actif. Ce rÃ©sultat serait manifestement dÃ©raisonnable, d'autant que c'est l'employeur qui paie les cotisations de retraite ATP et la majeure partie de la pension de l'Etat . Pour parvenir Ã une coordination, il a fallu choisir entre deux systÃ¨mes diffÃ©rents, un net et un brut . Un systÃ©me net signifie qu'une retraite complÃ©mentaire, fondÃ©e sur certaines dispositions prÃ©cises, est versÃ©e Ã titre de complÃ©ment aux prestations des assurances sociales . Dans un systÃ¨me brut, c'est le montant brut qui est fixÃ© et qui comprend les prestations des assurances sociales, dÃ©duites dans la mÃªme proportion que la retraite brute . La coordination est telle que, dans chaque cas, la retraite du personnel est Ã tout moment calculÃ©e de faÃ§on que, jointe aux prestations des assurances sociales, elle atteigne au moins un certain montant brut pour le retraitÃ© . La diffÃ©rence entre montant brut et prestations des assurances sociales est appelÃ©e retraite complÃ©mentaire . Dans ce contexte, on tient compte des montants de la pension de vieillesse et de la pension ATP qui auraient Ã©tÃ© versÃ©s si les retraites avaient Ã©tÃ© demandÃ©es Ã partir du mois oÃ¹ le retraitÃ© atteint ses 65 ans . La retraite complÃ©mentaire (du requÃ©rant) correspond Ã 20 % environ du montant brvt . Pour diffÃ©rentes raisons, c'est le systÃ¨me brut qui a Ã©tÃ© retenu dans le rÃ©gime des pensions des salariÃ©s de l'Etat, aprÃ¨s consultations avec les syndicats de salariÃ©s . Les dispositions sur la coordination figurent Ã l'anicle 6 du SPR et Ã l'article 4 de l'Addendum au SPR . Selon l'accord gÃ©nÃ©ral sur les pensions, ces dispositions s'appliquent aux salariÃ©s de l'Etat et Ã certains autres fonctionnaires . L'accord s'est appliquÃ© au (requÃ©rant) lorsque celui-ci a quittÃ© son emploi . 234
La coordination avec l'ATP et la pension de vieillesse s'est faite en totale conformitÃ© avec les dispositions en vigueur . La demande (du requÃ©rant) ne devrait dÃ¨s lors aboutir Ã aucune suite de la pari de l'administration . L'administration (civildepartemenrer) rejeta la demande du requÃ©rant le 2 jui n
1983 GRIEFS Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir Ã©tÃ© privÃ© d'une partie de ses droits Ã pension en violation des contrats passÃ©s avec son employeur . Il allÃ¨gue une violation du droit suÃ©dois et de l'article I du Protocole additionnel . Il allÃ¨gue Ã©galement une discrimination . EN DROIT Le requÃ©rant s'est plaint de n'avoir pas perÃ§u la totalitÃ© de la pension qu'il lui Ã©tait due selon l'accord passÃ© avec son employeur, les Chemins de fer suÃ©dois . Il allÃ¨gue une violation de l'article I du Protocole additionnel . La question peut se poser de savoir si le requÃ©rant a Ã©puisÃ© pour ce grief, les recours intemes, comme l'exige l'article 26 de la Convention . La Commission n'estime cependant pas nÃ©cessaire de pousser plus avant l'analyse de la question car la requÃªte est, au demeurant, irrecevable pour les raisons suivantes . La Commission rappelle sa jurisprudence constante, selon laquelle aucun droit Ã l'octroi d'une pension n'est, en tant que tel, garanti par la Convention . En mÃªme temps, la Commission a souvent dÃ©clarÃ© que le versement de cotisations Ã une caisse de retraite peut, dans certaines circonstances, crÃ©er un droit de propriÃ©tÃ© sur une partie de ces fonds, une modification des droits Ã pension dans le cadre d'un tel systÃ¨me pouvant alors thÃ©oriquement, poser un problÃ¨me au regard de l'article I du Protocole additionnel . La Commission a cependant ajoutÃ© que Â«mÃªme si l'on admettait que l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel garantit Ã ceux qui ont payÃ© des contributions Ã un systÃ¨me d'assurance sociale le droit de tirer un bÃ©nÃ©fice de ce systÃ¨me, il ne peut cependant Ãªtre interprÃ©tÃ© comme donnant droit Ã une rente d'un montant dÃ©terminÃ© Â» (voir MÃ¼ller c/Autriche, rapport Comm . 1 .10 .75, par . 30, D .R . 3 p . 25) . La Commission estime Ã©galement que le droit Ã pension fondÃ© sur l'emploi peut, dans certaines circonstances, Ã©tre assimilÃ© Ã un droit de propriÃ©tÃ© et ce peut Ãªtre le cas que le salariÃ© ait versÃ© des cotisations spÃ©ciales ou que l'employeur ait pris l'engagentent plus gÃ©nÃ©ral de verser une pension Ã des conditions qui peuvent @tre considÃ©rÃ©es comme faisant partie du contrat de travail . La Commission rappelle que, lorsque le requÃ©rant a pris sa retraite anticipÃ©e, il gagnait environ 6 .000 couronnes par mois . Il a donc bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© de la pension d e
l'Etat et d'une pension de vieillesse au titre du rÃ©gime de sÃ©curitÃ© sociale jusqu'Ã ses 65 ans . En fÃ©vrier 1982, il a perÃ§u 8 .625 couronnes . Lorsqu'il a atteint ses 65 ans, sa pension de l'Etat a Ã©tÃ© coordonnÃ©e avec les prestations d'assurances sociales, ce qui a eu pour effet de diminuer le montanl total de sa retraite . A partir de mars 1982, il ne perÃ§oit plus que 4 .945 couronnes par mois . Le requÃ©rant demande en substance Ã bÃ©nÃ©ficier de la totalitÃ© des prestations, tant du rÃ©gime d'assurances sociales que de la pension de l'Etat . Il dÃ©coule des dispositions de loi applicables aux salariÃ©s de l'Etat suÃ©dois qu'il doit y avoir coordination entre les prestations versÃ©es au titre du rÃ©gime de pension dÃ© l'Etat et celles garanties au titre du rÃ©gime de sÃ©curitÃ© sociale, de faÃ§on Ã Ã©viter que le total de la pension soit plus Ã©levÃ© que le salaire que percevait le salariÃ© lorsqu'il travaillait . La Commission n'estime pa.s que les autoritÃ©s, appliquant cene rÃ©glementation au requÃ©rint, puissent Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©es comme l'ayant privÃ© d'un droit de propriÃ©tÃ© dont il bÃ©nÃ©ficiait auparavant . Si l'on acceptait l'argumentation du requÃ©rant, ce demier aurait droit au versement par l'Etat de la totalitÃ© des prestations des assurances sociales et par son employeur de la tolalitÃ© de la pension de l'Etat (son employeur Ã©tant l'Etat par l'intermÃ©diaire des Chemins de fer suÃ©dois) . La Commission ne trouve rien de rÃ©prÃ©hensible au regard de l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel qu'une coordination soit effectuÃ©e entre les prestations sociales et les versements au titre de la pension . Cela Ã©tant, la Commission ne dÃ©cÃ¨le aucune apparence de violation de l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel ni d'aucun autre article de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que la requÃ¨te est manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27 par . 2 de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTEIRRECEVABLE .
236Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 04/03/1985Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 4
 l'article 26
 l'article 1
 l'article 1
 l'article 1
 l'article 27