FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF P.C. v. IRELAND
(Application no. 26922/19)
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 1 P1 • Ratione materiae • Withheld old-age pension payment, due to statutory disqualification while incarcerated, not a “possession”
Art 14 (+ Art 1 P1) • Discrimination • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • No discrimination against convicted prisoner statutorily disqualified from old-age pension payments while incarcerated • Payments a proprietary interest falling within ambit of Art 1 P1 • No evidence of greater impact on older-age prisoners as a group • Differing impact of the disqualification, based on a person’s level of income and its source, not related to personal status • Convicted prisoners not in relevantly similar position to persons detained for treatment of mental illness or remand prisoners
Art 13 (+ Art 14 + Art 1 P1) • Effective remedy • Supreme Court decision to uphold constitutional complaint, and not proceed with full consideration of Convention complaints, within authorities’ margin of appreciation • No issues arising from level of damages awarded • Manifestly ill-founded

 
STRASBOURG
1 September 2022
 
FINAL
 
01/12/2022
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of P.C. v. Ireland,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Mārtiņš Mits, President,
 Síofra O’Leary,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Lado Chanturia,
 Ivana Jelić,
 Mattias Guyomar,
 Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 26922/19) against Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), by Mr P.C. (“the applicant”) on 8 May 2019;
the decision to give notice to the Irish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, alone and in conjunction with Article 14, and also Article 13 of the Convention, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the decision to grant the applicant anonymity;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 28 June 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns the disqualification of the applicant for his old age pension while serving a sentence of imprisonment. The applicant claimed that this disqualification, provided for by statute, was an interference with his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and that it also discriminated against him contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant also claimed that because the Supreme Court did not determine his Convention complaints and, as a result, did not award him adequate redress, he was denied an effective remedy, contrary to Article 13. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
2. The applicant, P.C., is an Irish national, who was born in 1940 and lives in Dublin. He is represented before the Court by Mr J. MacGuill, a lawyer practising in Dublin. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr B. Lysaght of the Department of Foreign Affairs. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The applicant made Pay Related Social Insurance (‘PRSI’) contributions, qualifying for the State Pension (Contributory) (‘the SPC’) in accordance with sections 108‑109 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 (‘the 2005 Act’, see further under Part II.C below) when he reached the age of 66 years on 10 February 2006. He began to receive weekly SPC payments from that date to the value of about EUR 230. 5. On 25 March 2011 the applicant was convicted of sixty counts of sexual assault and fourteen counts of rape. The following day, he was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment, with the final three years suspended. The applicant indicated to the Court that his anticipated release date was in March 2020. He served his sentence in what the High Court described as “a well‑run, modern prison with good facilities and a high standard of care”. 6. Section 249(1)(b) of the 2005 Act disqualified persons who were undergoing imprisonment or detention in legal custody from receiving any of the benefits provided for in part 2 of the Act. This included the SPC. On this basis, payment of the applicant’s pension ceased as from the date of his imprisonment. Proceedings in the High Court
7. In 2013 the applicant issued proceedings against the State. He sought a declaration that the impugned provision was incompatible with one or more articles of the Constitution, damages for a breach of his constitutional rights, and an injunction ordering the State to pay him his pension. In addition, he argued that the stoppage of his pension was contrary to one or more of the following provisions of the Convention: Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, and 14, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He sought a declaration under section 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003 that the impugned provision was incompatible with the Convention and claimed compensation for the loss suffered by him as a result (see further under Part II.B below). 8. The applicant claimed before the High Court that the stoppage of his pension had left him practically destitute, since his only income was a prison gratuity. This had initially been worth EUR 18.90 per week, decreasing to EUR 11.90 per week owing to his inability to perform work within the prison on account of a number of age-related ailments and a wrist injury sustained in prison. The High Court noted that had he been in a position to take on prison work, he could have earned an extra EUR 3.50 per week. As things stood, the applicant explained that he had no money to spend on, for example, extra food, personal clothing or small electronic appliances for use in his cell. He mentioned a payment of EUR 50 from the prison hardship fund in 2013. He complained that the stoppage of his pension would mean a loss of over EUR 100,000 for him. 9. In addition to the applicant, the High Court also heard evidence from two State officials, a civil servant who explained the structure and purpose of the SPC, and the Assistant Governor of the prison where the applicant was being held. The first witness indicated that about 30-40 prisoners had their SPC payments stopped each year. She also clarified that the SPC is a non‑means-tested benefit. All those who meet the eligibility criteria receive it, regardless of any other income or assets. The second witness informed the court about the regime to which the applicant was subject in prison, the facilities and services available to him, and the average cost of maintaining a prisoner per year – approximately EUR 65,000. She indicated that there were between five and ten prisoners in the same age group as the applicant who were performing work in the prison, earning EUR 4.50 per week. It was possible for prisoners to receive additional funds, including from private pensions, that could be lodged by their family into the prisoner’s “prison account”. 10. The High Court gave judgment on 29 April 2016 ([2016] IEHC 315), dismissing the case. It addressed the question whether payment of the SPC to the applicant represented a property right for the purposes of the Constitution or the Convention. It did not accept the applicant’s argument that the contributory nature of the benefit meant that it was a property right. It noted that the benefit system was also funded in part by tax revenue, and the legislature could very well decide to change the funding model from contributions to funding through income tax. Furthermore, it referred to the importance of maintaining flexibility in the social welfare system so that it could meet the social needs prevailing at any moment in time. To classify contributory benefits as property rights would greatly hinder that. In this respect the judgment referred to Convention case-law allowing a wide margin of appreciation to the Contracting States in matters of economic and social strategy. 11. As for the claim of unconstitutional discrimination, the High Court rejected the attempted comparison with prisoners in receipt of private pensions. Such benefits clearly were property rights that the State could not suspend, unless it were to introduce a requirement for prisoners to contribute to the cost of their incarceration. It further noted that such prisoners were actually treated in the same way as their (likely) entitlement to receive the SPC was also suspended for the duration of their detention. Furthermore, the rule applied to all social welfare benefits, not just the SPC. The court rejected the argument that the applicant was being required to meet the cost of his imprisonment whereas those with other sources of income were not. It considered that given the purpose of the SPC – to assist the recipients to meet basic living costs – the State was entitled to withhold the benefit when the person was imprisoned and their essential needs were met. This was an objectively rational and proportionate measure, and therefore not discriminatory. 12. Turning to the Convention arguments, the High Court summarily rejected those advanced under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8. As for his complaint under Article 14, it stated:
“124. In this case, the impugned provision applies to the population generally, and more specifically it applies to all persons who are entitled to receive the SPC. It applies to social welfare benefits generally, and not just the SPC. The plaintiff complains that it does not apply to those who have a private pension, other sources of income or a semi-state pension, but as I have already held, this is not comparing like with like. No argument has been advanced, and it does not appear as though any could be made, as to why the plaintiff should be treated differently from the rest of the population as regard the application of s. 249(1). Moreover, if there has been any difference in treatment of the plaintiff with others in analogous situations (and it follows from the above that I do not consider this to be so), this does not give rise to a breach of Article 14 in circumstances where there is a reasonable and objective justification for section 249(1).

Outcome for Article 14: no_violation