CASE OF B. v. SWITZERLAND
Hearing: B. v. Switzerland (no. 78630/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-06-16 00:00:00)
Application no.: 78630/12
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2020-10-20 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:1020JUD007863012
Respondent state: CHE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;14;14+8;41
Judges: Alena Poláčková;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Paul Lemmens;Lorraine Schembri Orland;María Elósegui
Represented by: LUGINBÜHL J.
Issue: Sections 23 and 24 of the Federal Law of 20 December 1946 on pension insurance and survivors (“LAVS”)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 82, Series A no 94;Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no 37;Belli and Arquier Martinez v. Switzerland, no 65550/13, 11 December 2018;Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no 280 B;Claes and Others v. Belgium, nos. 46825/99, § 53, 2 June 2005;Dhahbi v. Italy, no 17120/09, § 41, 8 April 2014;Di Trizio v. Switzerland, no 7186/09, 2 February 2016;Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no 78117/13, § 112, 5 September 2017;G.M.B. and K.M. v. Switzerland (dec.), no 36797/97, 27 September 2001;Gaygusuz v. Austria, 16 September 1996, § 42, Reports 1996 IV;Gençel v. Turkey, no 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003;Glor v. Switzerland, no 13444/04, § 52, ECHR 2009;Inze v. Austria, 28 October 1987, § 41, Series A no 126;Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 53, 24 January 2017;Kimlya and Others v. Russia, nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03, § 86, ECHR 2009;Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no 30078/06, §§ 126-127 and 130, ECHR 2012;Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, Series A no 102, § 177;Merger and Cros v. France, no 68864/01, § 46, 22 December 2004;Mikulić v. Croatia, no 53176/99, § 53, ECHR 2002 I;National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 88, Reports 1997 VII;Otgon v. the Republic of Moldova, no 22743/07, 25 October 2016;Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, §§ 27 and 30, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 II;Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 40, Series A no 87;Sahin v. Germany [GC], no 30943/96, § 85, ECHR 2003 VIII;Schuler Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no 263;Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 46295/99, § 68, ECHR 2002 IV;Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, §§ 51 and 63-64, ECHR 2006 VI;Ünal Tekeli v. Turkey, no 29865/96, §§ 54 and 63, ECHR 2004 X;Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 72, ECHR 2013;Vasilenkov v. Ukraine, no 19872/02, § 18, 3 May 2005;Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no 2) [GC], no 32772/02, § 88, ECHR 2009;Weller v. Hungary, no 44399/05, §§ 28-29, 31 March 2009;Yuriy Romanov v. Russia, no 69341/01, § 45, 25 October 2005;Zarb Adami v. Malta, no 17209/02, §§ 71-73, ECHR 2006 VIII
Conclusion: Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Insufficient reparation under national law;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE