The terms of withholding and renewing the payment of old-age benefits P 14/11
At the hearing on 19 February 2013 at 1 p.m., the Constitutional Tribunal considered a question of law, referred by the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, 3rd Labour and Social Insurance Division, concerningthe terms of withholding and renewing the payment of old-age benefits.
I. The Constitutional Tribunal adjudicated that Article 46(1) of the Act of 18 February 1994 on Old-Age Pensions of Functionaries of the Police, the Internal Security Agency, the Foreign Intelligence Agency, the Military Counter-Intelligence Service, the Military Intelligence Service, the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Border Guard, the Government Protection Bureau, the State Fire Service and the Penitentiary Service as well as Their Families, insofar as it provided for renewing the payment of an old-age pension as of a month when the reason for withholding the payment of the said pension disappeared, but no earlier than as of a month when a request for the renewal of the payment was filed or a decision was issued ex officio, was inconsistent with Article 2 of the Constitution.
II. The provision referred to in point I, within the scope indicated therein, would cease to have effect after the lapse of 12 months from the day of the publication of the judgment in the Journal of Laws.
As to the remainder, the Constitutional Tribunal discontinued the proceedings.
The Constitutional Tribunal stated that a criterion for differentiating between the situations of old-age pensioners who received old-age pension benefits was the fact that they were assigned to different social security systems (the universal social security system, the system of social security for uniformed services).
Although the legislator enjoys a relatively broad scope of regulatory freedom when specifying the terms of the payment of old-age pensions, this does not, however, mean that he does not have to take into account standards arising from other norms set out in the Constitution, including in particular the requirements that a restriction imposed on a given right should be proportionate, that interference with the constitutional subjective rights needs to be legitimate, and that the principle of social justice must be respected.
However, the Constitutional Tribunal does not challenge the general possibility of differentiating between the legal situations of old-age pensioners who receive benefits under the two above-mentioned social security systems, or the mere fact of establishing such systems, which is done for axiological and pragmatic reasons and constitutes an element of the state’s policy with regard to the occupations and duties that are of particular significance for the protection of the public interest.
The payment of an old-age pension is withheld in circumstances where the entitlement to receive such payment is still valid, as it has not been suspended, has been deemed non-existent, or has ceased to exist. Thus, a given beneficiary still fulfils statutory requirements for the acquisition of the right to the benefit, and his/her individual legal status, previously confirmed by a decision on eligibility for an old-age pension benefit, still remains valid. By contrast, the challenged provision brings about effects similar to the formal suspension of the right to the benefit which has occurred as a result of a mistake made by an old-age pension authority when one may not claim the payment of the benefit for the period when the right to an old-age pension was suspended.
The characteristics of the social security system for uniformed services do not constitute sufficient justification for the legal mechanism provided for in the challenged provision in a situation where the payment of an old-age pension is withheld due to the lack of possibility of delivering it, which is not caused by the old-age pension authority.
This is determined by neither the “provision” system for uniformed services, which is characterised by its accumulation of funds for the payment of benefits, or the particular character of uniformed service, which implies inter alia availability and dependence on the authority of superiors, the performance of duties outside set working hours, harsh conditions – frequently posing serious risks to health and life, as well as a restriction of certain political rights during the years of service.
The hearing was presided over by Judge Marek Zubik, and the Judge Rapporteur was Judge Leon Kieres.
The judgment is final and its operative part shall be published in the Journal of Laws