Published on 2 December 2024
 
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 38382/19
Nechita RUSU
against Romania
lodged on 4 July 2019
communicated on 12 November 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the review of the applicant’s old-age pension rights five years after they have been assessed and a demand for retrospective repayment of money mistakenly paid to him.
In 2012 the applicant attained the retirement age and started receiving a monthly pension of 1,150 Romanian Lei (RON) (the equivalent of some 260 Euro (EUR)). In 2017 the applicant was informed by the local pension authority that there had been a mistake at the time of assessment of his pension rights due to the wrong application of the pension legislation by the authority. In particular, a period during which he had worked in a collective farm (“CAP”), had to be excluded from the assessment because he had not been an ordinary member of the farm but an accountant. As a result, his monthly pension was to be reduced by approximately thirty percent, and he had to repay the State the money mistakenly paid to him over the last three years in an amount of RON 12,749 (the equivalent of some EUR 3,000).
The applicant challenged the above decision and was successful at first instance. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the first instance court and ruled in favour of the pension authority. In so doing, the court did not find any fault on the part of the applicant in relation to the mistake produced at the time of assessment of his pension rights by the pension authority.
The applicant complains that the re-assessment of his pension rights five years later, as well as the demand for the retrospective repayment of an important sum of money received breached his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the re-assessment of the applicant’s pension rights and the demand for the retrospective repayment of an important sum of money amount to a deprivation of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was the interference justified under this provision (Béláné Nagy v. Hungary [GC], no. 53080/13, 13 December 2016; and Čakarević v. Croatia, no. 48921/13, 26 April 2018)?