Judgment Constantinou and Others v. Cyprus - austerity measures reducing civil servants' salaries and pensions

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 266 (2025)   13.11.2025   Austerity measures in Cyprus reducing civil servants’ salaries and pensions did   not breach the European Convention   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Constantinou and Others v. Cyprus (application   nos. 77396/14, 45039/20, 45089/20, 45101/20, and 45899/20) the European Court of Human Rights   held, by 5 votes to 2, that there had been:   no violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and,   no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention.   The case concerned new laws passed in Cyprus in 2011 and 2012 reducing civil servants’ salaries and   pensions, amid the worldwide financial crisis. The applicants are 450 Cypriot nationals who were all   public sector employees or retirees at the time.   The Court found that the applicants’ pension and salary cuts had been relatively small and limited in   time, lasting between five and ten years, and had been justified by the dire financial situation in   Cyprus. It found no inconsistency in the national courts’ approach when deciding on the applicants’   complaints. Moreover, the courts had comprehensively interpreted the new legislation, carefully   balancing any interference with the applicants’ individual property rights against the general   interests of the community.   Principal facts   The applicants are 450 Cypriot nationals who were all public sector employees or retirees at the time   of the worldwide financial crisis.   Against that background, the Cypriot Parliament passed laws in 2011 and 2012 allowing for the   monthly deduction of a percentage from the pensions and gross income of officials and employees   in the civil service.   Thus, from 1 September 2011 to 31 December 2016 a monthly sum was deducted from the salaries   of the applicants in application no. 77396/14 in the form of a special contribution. The deduction   ranged from 0% to 3.5% of their gross monthly salary or pension and was tiered. The deduction   imposed on all the applicants in the remaining four applications was from 1 December 2012 to 1   January 2023 and was also tiered. It ranged from 0% to 17.5% of their gross salary or pension.   The applicants, and many other public sector employees and retirees, challenged the   constitutionality of those laws. In judgments in 2014 and 2020, the Supreme Court declared the   reduction of salaries and pensions to be constitutional. In particular, the Supreme Court found that   the applicants’ salaries and pensions had constituted property rights which were protected under   the Constitution, but that the reductions in question had been relatively small and imposed for a   limited period. It also bore in mind that the State had been under extreme financial strain and had   needed to take urgent measures to rescue the economy.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, all the applicants   complained that depriving them of part of their salaries and pensions had been unlawful and   unjustified.   Relying on Article 6 (right to fair hearing), some of the applicants alleged a breach of the principle of   legal certainty, arguing that the Supreme Court had failed to follow the precedents it had established   in previous cases.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination), some of the applicants   further complained that they had been discriminated against as civil servants. They considered that   the laws had disproportionately focused on them instead of employees in the private sector.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights in 2014 and 2020.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ivana Jelić (Montenegro), President,   Erik Wennerström (Sweden),   Georgios A. Serghides (Cyprus),   Frédéric Krenc (Belgium),   Alain Chablais (Liechtenstein),   Artūrs Kučs (Latvia),   Anna Adamska-Gallant (Poland),   and also Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 (right to a fair trial)   The Court was not convinced by the applicants’ argument that the Supreme Court had been   inconsistent in its decisions on the new legislation. The national courts’ explanation – a difference in   the facts – for the varied approaches had been reasonable. In particular, the reduction of the   applicants’ pensions and salaries had been limited in amount and time and had been related to the   dire financial situation, whereas the complainants in previous cases had lost their pensions   permanently, in part or totally. The Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)   The Court found that the deductions under the legislation in question had interfered with the   applicants’ rights. That interference had been based in law, namely the Law on Extraordinary   Contribution of Officials, Employees and Pensioners of the Civil Service and the Wider Public Sector   of 2011 (which impacted the applicants in the first application) and the Law on the Reduction in   Emoluments and Pensions of Officials, Employees and Pensioners of the Public Sector and of the   broader Public Sector of 2012 (which impacted the remaining applicants). The Court noted that the   Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of those laws when deciding on the applicants’   cases, with a comprehensive interpretation of the legislation and resolving any ambiguities.   Moreover, it was clear that the restriction on the applicants’ rights had had the legitimate aim of   protecting the public purse during a time of serious financial difficulty.   Bearing in mind that aim and the fact that member States had considerable room for manoeuvre   (“margin of appreciation”) in deciding on social and economic policy, the Court found that the   authorities had struck a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community   and those of protecting the applicants’ individual fundamental rights.   2 In particular, the reductions in question had not been significant as compared to previous situations   examined by the Court and they had been finite, lasting for periods between five to ten years. In any   event, none of the applicants had argued that the measures had jeopardised their only means of   subsistence or put them at risk of not having enough to live on.   There had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination)   The Court found that there could be no claim for discrimination because the applicants had not   shown that they had been in an analogous or relevantly similar situation to private sector   employees. Indeed, there was an essential distinction, namely that their incomes were drawn from   different sources, the State and not a private budget. The Court therefore rejected this complaint as   inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.   Separate opinion   Judge Serghides, joined by Judge Adamska-Gallant, expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed   to the judgment.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int.   Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.   Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.   Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3