BIERNACKA v. POLAND and 2 other applications

Published on 24 February 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 28660/23 Irena BIERNACKA against Poland and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 7 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present applications concern reduction of the applicants’ pensions (and, in case of the applicant in the case no. 28660/23, the survivor’s pension). They raise issues similar to Cichopek and Others v. Poland ((dec.), nos. 15189/10 and 1,627 others, 14 May 2013) and Bieliński v. Poland (no. 48762/19, 21 July 2022). In 2017, following the entry into force of the amendments of the Law of 18 February 1994 on old-age pensions of functionaries of the police, the Internal Security Agency, the 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, the Prison Service and their families (ustawa o zaopatrzeniu emerytalnym funkcjonariuszy Policji, Agencji Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego, Agencji Wywiadu, Służby Kontrwywiadu Wojskowego, Służby Wywiadu Wojskowego, Centralnego Biura Antykorupcyjnego, Straży Granicznej, Biura Ochrony Rządu, Państwowej Straży Pożarnej i Służby Więziennej oraz ich rodzin – “the 1994 Act”), administrative decisions were issued recalculating the applicants’ pensions. The decisions were immediately enforceable. Upon appeal, the domestic courts accepted the administrative decisions holding that, since the applicants had served a totalitarian regime, their benefits should be lowered. The dates of the final decisions by the Supreme Court are set out in the appended table. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the decrease of their pensions constitutes a disproportionate interference with their acquired rights which, in turn, amounts to a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the decrease of the applicants’ pensions (and, in case of the applicant in application no. 28860/23 the survivor’s pension) amounted to an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so:   (i) was the interference in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   (ii) did the interference complained of put an excessive burden on the applicants?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Case name Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Final domestic decision 1. 28660/23 13/07/2023 Biernacka v. Poland Irena BIERNACKA 1934 Wrocław Polish Joanna Paulina MAWROJANIDIS Supreme Court decision of 16/02/2023, case no. III USK 401/22 2. 32989/23 18/08/2023 Mieszkowska-Dutka v. Poland Kazimiera MIESZKOWSKA-DUTKA 1948 Jelenia Gόra Polish   Wroclaw Court of Appeal judgment of 20/04/2023, case no. III Aua 112/22 3. 41620/23 21/11/2023 Bigaj v. Poland Adam BIGAJ 1949 Kraków Polish   Warsaw Court of Appeal judgment of 28/07/2023, case no. III Aua 1842/21