Pensions
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A. Retirement benefits and disciplinary punishments 40. A public servant ’ s entitlement to retirement benefits is governed by the Pensions Law, Law 97(1)/97, as amended. The relevant sections, as applicable at the time, provide as follows: Section 4 (Granting of retirement benefits) “(1) Any pension, lump sum or gratuity, and other allowances, is granted to state officers of the Cyprus Republic in accordance with the provisions of the present Act. (2) Any pension, lump sum or gratuity granted under this Act shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions in force on the actual date of the state officer ’ s retirement.” Section 5 (charging the Consolidated Fund) “The Consolidated Fund of the Republic shall be charged with every pension, lump sum, gratuity or other allowance/benefit for which the Republic is liable on the basis of the law” Section 7 (exemption from income tax) “ Any gratuity and lump sum granted on the basis of the provisions of the Law are exempted from the imposition of income tax.” 41. Furthermore, section 8 of the Pensions Law provides the computation formula for pensions and lump sum payments. The following are the cases specified in section 9, as applicable at the time, which entitled a state employee to, inter alia, a pension and lump sum payment. These were: (a) on reaching the age of compulsory retirement or at any time thereafter; (b) on reaching the age of fifty-five; (c) on the abolition of his/her post; (d) on his/her retirement, to facilitate the organisational improvement of the service to which he/she belongs, which may thus achieve more effective operation of the service, or savings; (e) in case the employee was unable to perform his/her duties by reason of a mental or physical incapacity which was likely to be permanent; (f) in the event of termination of the employee ’ s services on specialised grounds of public interest in accordance with the relevant applicable law; (g) in the event of his retirement on account of inadequacy or unfitness; (h) in the event of imposition by the competent disciplinary organ of the disciplinary penalty of compulsory retirement; (i) on retirement for reasons of public interest to take some other public office which is incompatible with his/her office or post; (j) on retirement for reasons of public interest to be appointed to a public benefit organisation or local authority; and (k) in the event of voluntary early retirement. 42. Section 45 of the Pensions Law provides for reduction of a pension provided under the provisions of the Law by the equivalent complementary amount which is being paid to a pensioner or in this respect by virtue of the Social Security Laws with regard to insurance payments on which contributions were made after 6 October 1980. For the purposes of sections 5(1) and 88(1) of the Social Security Laws the employee is regarded, with reference to any service other than the service which is taken into consideration in calculating the maximum amount of pension and the amount of gratuity, as not covered by a professional pension scheme. 43. Furthermore, the relevant sections of the Public Service Law (Law 1/1990), as applicable at the time, governing retirement benefits and disciplinary punishment read as follows: Section 56 (retirement benefits) (1) The retirement benefits of permanent and pensionable officers are those prescribed by the Pensions Law or any law amending or substituted for the same and any Regulations made thereunder. (2) The retirement benefits of a monthly-paid officer, who does not belong to the permanent public service and is not serving on contract, shall be prescribed by Regulations made under this Law.” Section 79 (disciplinary punishments) “1. In accordance with the present Law, the following disciplinary penalties may be imposed: (a) reprimand (b) severe reprimand (c) disciplinary transfer (d) interruption of annual salary increase (e) suspension of annual salary increase (f) pecuniary penalty, which may not exceed three months ’ salary (g) reduction in salary scales (h) reduction in rank (i) compulsory retirement (j) dismissal. ... 7. Dismissal entails the loss of all retirement benefits. It is provided that a pension is paid to the wife or dependent children, if any, of a public servant who was dismissed as though he had died on the date of his dismissal and it shall be calculated on the basis of his actual years of service.” 44. It is noted that section 79(1) and (7) of the earlier law, namely, the Public Service Law of 1967 (Law 33/1967), applicable at the time of the applicant ’ s employment, was the same as that contained in Law 1/1990, save for the last paragraph of section 79(7), which provides for payment of a pension to the dismissed public servant ’ s family. This amendment was introduced by Law 1/1990. B. Relevant Constitutional provisions and case-law 45. The relevant Constitutional provisions read as follows: Article 23 “1. Every person, alone or jointly with others, has the right to acquire, own, possess, enjoy or dispose of any movable or immovable property and has the right to respect for such right. The right of the Republic to underground water, mineral and antiquities is reserved. 2. No deprivation or restriction or limitation of any such right shall be made except as provided in this Article. 3. Restrictions or limitations which are absolutely necessary in the interest of public safety, health or morals, or the town and county planning or the development and utilisation of any property to the promotion of the public benefit or for the protection of the rights of others may be imposed by law on the exercise of such right ... .” Article 166 (1) “There shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund, in addition to any grant, remuneration or other moneys charged by any other provision of this Constitution or law - (a) all pensions and gratuities for which the Republic is liable; ...”. Article 169 (3) “Treaties, conventions and agreements concluded in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Article shall have, as from their publication in the official Gazette of the Republic, superior force to any municipal law on condition that such treaties, conventions and agreements are applied by the other party thereto.” 46. The Supreme Court, in the case of Pavlou v. the Republic (Revisional appeal no. 161/2006, (2009) 3 CLR 1402), which concerned the reduction of the State pension upon receipt of an old-age pension from the Social Insurance Fund, held that a pension constituted property and was consequently an individual right that required legal protection. III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL 47. The preamble of the Council of Europe ’ s Criminal Law Convention on Corruption of 27 January 1999 reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “Preamble The member States of the Council of Europe and the other States signatory hereto, ... Emphasising that corruption threatens the rule of law, democracy and human rights, undermines good governance, fairness and social justice, distorts competition, hinders economic development and endangers the stability of democratic institutions and the moral foundations of society; ... ” THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION 48. The applicant complained that the forfeiture of his retirement benefits following his dismissal from the public service breached Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” A. The parties ’ submissions 1. The Government 49. The Government submitted that the determining question in the case, in the light of the Court ’ s case-law concerning similar complaints on forfeiture or loss of pension, was whether a fair balance had been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirement of the protection of the individual ’ s fundamental rights. They noted that, in line with the Court ’ s case-law, the forfeiture of a retirement pension fell to be considered under the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, since it acted neither as a control of use nor as a deprivation of property. In the Government ’ s view the required fair balance had not been exceeded. 50. The Government, relying on the Court ’ s decision in the case of Banfield (cited above) pointed out that the State ’ s entitlement to bring disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in addition to criminal proceedings was not in question: the criminal proceedings related to the breaches of criminal law and the disciplinary proceedings to the applicant ’ s breach of the relationship of trust which must exist between all employees and their employer. They observed in this respect that the situation in the present case had been the same as in Banfield : the applicant had benefited from procedural protection, and the penalty imposed on him had been a discretionary one. 51. First of all, the disciplinary procedure had commenced following the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The PSC had transmitted the Assize Court ’ s judgment to the Attorney-General for an opinion as to whether the offences of which the applicant had been convicted entailed dishonesty and moral turpitude. After receiving the Attorney-General ’ s opinion, the PSC had afforded the applicant the right to be heard before deciding on the disciplinary penalty. 52. Secondly, the PSC ’ s decision to dismiss the applicant had been discretionary. This had been evident from both the Supreme Court ’ s ex tempore decision of 2 April 2007 and its judgment on appeal (see paragraphs 24 and 33 above). The present case was therefore distinguishable from that of Apostolakis (cited above), in which the conviction itself had led to the automatic forfeiture of the pension. Further, unlike in the case of Azinas (cited above), the PSC had taken into account a number of issues when deciding on the penalty, such as the mitigating factors cited by the applicant ’ s lawyer. These had included his difficult financial situation - a socio-economic report by the Department of Social Welfare Services had been submitted by the applicant - and the fact that his co-accused had received the lighter penalty of compulsory retirement. In exercising its discretion, the PSC had taken account of the fact that the applicant had been the main protagonist and the brains behind the offences committed. Soon after he had been entrusted with the task of signing authorisations for the payment of compensation to members of the public for compulsory acquisitions of their property, he had systematically, over a period of two years, used his position to defraud public funds of substantial amounts for his own personal gain. He had planned the whole scheme, and had executed it with the aid of his co-accused. As a result 223 criminal charges had been brought against him, and the offences of which he had been convicted and sentenced had been very serious. The Government considered that it could be assumed that the applicant had caused considerable damage to the public ’ s trust in the proper functioning of the Public Service and the honesty of State employees in administering State funds. The PSC had therefore decided to impose the penalty of dismissal, which was the most severe provided by the Public Service Law, as it carried the loss of all retirement benefits specified in section 56 of that Law, as applicable at the time. The Government stressed in this respect that in the case of Banfield (cited above) the Court had stated that it was not inherently unreasonable for provision to be made even for total forfeiture of a pension in suitable cases. 53. Thirdly, the applicant ’ s retirement pension and lump sum had been entirely publicly funded, the applicant having made no contributions. The forfeiture related to the State ’ s funding of the pension scheme. No issue therefore arose of forfeiture of contributions made by the applicant. Relying on the case of Klein v. Austria (no. 57028/00, § 57, 3 March 2011), the Government submitted that this was an important factor to take into account. The payment by the Republic of a public service retirement pension without any contribution by its civil servants constituted the employee ’ s reward for faithful service. If the applicant had received this reward, or part of it, public confidence would have been further shaken. The Government pointed out in this respect that at the time of his dismissal the applicant had been covered by an occupational pension scheme applicable to all State employees. This scheme provided State employees with benefits upon their retirement or resignation from service. In the event of their death the benefits were given to their dependents. The applicant, upon retirement, would have been entitled to an annual pension and a lump sum payment computable in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Law, as applicable at the time. That law provided that the Republic was obliged to pay those benefits, which were charged to the account of the Republic ’ s consolidated fund. This was the fund into which, by virtue of the Constitution, all revenues and monies raised or received by the Republic were paid. Had the applicant theoretically retired voluntarily on 13 June 2005, pursuant to section 8 of the Pensions Law (see paragraph 41 above), he would have been entitled to an annual pension amounting to EUR 17,161.65; the lump sum came to EUR 80,087.82. 54. However, in contrast to the Apostolakis case (cited above), the applicant ’ s loss of retirement benefits had not entailed loss of his social insurance rights, nor had he been deprived of all means of subsistence. At all material times the applicant, like all State employees, had also been compulsorily insured under the Republic ’ s general Social Insurance Scheme, which covered all employees and entitled them to the payment of a social security pension from the Social Insurance Fund. This pension was funded by employee contributions as well as employer contributions, and its level depended on the amounts that had been contributed. The right to benefits payable from the Social Insurance Fund was not affected in the event of dismissal. Consequently, since 2012, when the applicant reached the age of sixty-three, he had been receiving a social security pension from the Social Insurance Fund amounting to EUR 1,363.98 per month. Although the Government admitted that this amount was slightly less than what he would have been entitled to under the Pensions Law if he had retired voluntarily on 13 June 2005, unlike the applicant in the case of Apostolakis, at the age of fifty-six the applicant still had employment potential. 2. The applicant 55. The applicant submitted, firstly, that it was clear from the domestic judgments and was also common ground between the parties that his pension amounted to a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that its deprivation constituted an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. It was the applicant ’ s position that this interference was unjustified. In this respect he argued that a pension constituted an integral part of the employment contract that the Government offered to all of its employees, namely civil servants. This was evident from the schemes of service provided by the Government. Employment in the civil service came with a general undertaking and a corresponding legitimate expectation that a pension was payable as an integral part of the conditions of service. It was part of the overall employment package which the Government undertook to finance and pay at the end of one ’ s employment. Consequently, when the applicant ’ s employment was terminated by the Government he was entitled to his pension. 56. The applicant submitted that the automatic forfeiture of his retirement benefits upon the imposition of the penalty of dismissal had not been in the public interest and could not be considered justified or proportionate. The applicant had pleaded guilty to twenty-four charges in the criminal proceedings and had been sentenced to five years ’ imprisonment. The Assize Court when sentencing the applicant had taken into account the seriousness of the offences and had explained why a custodial sentence was appropriate and why it could not be suspended. Despite the fact that the penalty provided by the domestic law ranged from three years ’ imprisonment to life imprisonment, as part of the arrangement reached with the Government the applicant had received a five year sentence, which he had served. The applicant had also repaid the amount taken as part of the deal. The PSC had then through disciplinary proceedings decided to impose the strictest punishment provided by the law, namely dismissal. In the applicant ’ s view the above had constituted an adequate response to his misconduct and had been commensurate to the damage to public confidence. However, as a result of the dismissal he had also been automatically deprived of all his retirement benefits, including his pension which had been earned during his thirty-three years of employment as a civil servant. This could have been avoided if the PSC had imposed compulsory retirement, which would not have affected his retirement rights. Consequently, even though the applicant had repaid his debt to society having been convicted by a criminal court, served a prison sentence, reimbursed the amount due, and lost his job, all his retirement benefits were forfeited, exposing him to great financial and emotional hardship. The applicant had been subjected to a triple punishment, which was contrary to the principles of international law and the spirit of the Convention, as no one should be punished more than once for the same offence. Furthermore, the punishment was of a continuing nature: the longer the applicant lived the harsher the punishment was, as he remained without a pension. 57. The applicant argued that just as in the case of Apostolakis (cited above ) the imposition of the penalty of forfeiture of his retirement benefits was automatic and therefore sui generis disproportionate. In the above case the Court had also ruled that the fact that domestic law provided for the pension to be transferred to the family was insufficient to compensate Mr Apostolakis for his loss. 58. The applicant pointed out that the Government had not provided full and detailed information about the public service pension scheme. Furthermore, their observations were misleading, for a number of reasons. First of all, during the criminal proceedings the Government had not insisted on the maximum penalty provided by the domestic law, but had agreed to reach an arrangement in the case. How could they now argue before the Court that the imposition of a lesser disciplinary penalty would have been wrong? Secondly, the Government had attempted to create the impression that there was a clear distinction under domestic law between what was designated as the public service retirement pension and the social security pension, but that was not the case, as these pensions were treated as one. This was the reason why when a person reached retirement he was entitled only to one pension, and the pension granted under the Pensions Law was reduced by the corresponding amount granted as a pension from the Social Insurance Fund. The Government had failed to mention this. When the applicant had turned sixty-three and started receiving a social security pension, the pension received by his wife pursuant to section 79(7) of the Public Service Law was reduced by the complementary amount received by him from the Social Insurance Fund. Thirdly, it was misleading to argue that the payment of the non-contributory pension constituted a reward for faithful service. The pension could not be construed as a reward by the Government to the employee, but as part of his/her entitlements. It was therefore not subject to a work performance review. He lastly submitted, relying on the dissenting opinion of Judge Ress in the Grand Chamber judgment in Azinas (cited above), that it would be arbitrary to place the dividing line under the property aspect between those public servants who were working within a system of social security contracts where contributions were formally paid and those whose contributions were from the very beginning indirectly deducted from their salaries and therefore paid by the State. B. The Court ’ s assessment 1. General principles 59. The principles which apply generally in cases under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are equally relevant when it comes to pensions (see Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 82, 7 July 2011, and Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, 18 February 2009). Thus, that provision does not guarantee the right to acquire property (ibid.). Nor does it guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see, among many other authorities, Andrejeva, cited above, and Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05, § 84, 2 5 October 2011 ). However, where a Contracting State has in force legislation providing for the payment as of right of a pension – whether or not conditional on the prior payment of contributions – that legislation has to be regarded as generating a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for individuals who satisfy its requirements (see, among other authorities, Pejčić v. Serbia, no. 34799/07, § 55, 8 October 2013; Stummer, cited above, § 82; Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2010; and Banfield, and Apostolakis, § 29, both cited above ). The reduction or the discontinuance of a pension may therefore constitute an interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions that needs to be justified (see, among other authorities, Grudić v. Serbia, no. 31925/08, § 72, 17 April 2012, and Valkov and Others, cited above). 60. The first and most important requirement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is that any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions should be lawful and that it should pursue a legitimate aim “in the public interest” (see, among many authorities, The Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, §§ 79 and 83). Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to decide what is “in the public interest”. Under the system of protection established by the Convention, it is thus for the national authorities to make the initial assessment as to the existence of a problem of public concern warranting measures interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (see, among other authorities, Stefanetti and Others v. Italy, nos. 21838/10, 21849/10, 21852/10, 21822/10, 21860/10, 21863/10, 21869/10, and 21870/10, § 52, 15 April 2014 ). Here, as in other fields to which the safeguards of the Convention extend, the national authorities accordingly enjoy a certain margin of appreciation (see, among other authorities, The Former King of Greece and Others, cited above, § 87 ). 61. Any interference must also be reasonably proportionate to the aim pursued. In other words, a “fair balance” must be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual ’ s fundamental rights. The requisite balance will not be found if the person or persons concerned have had to bear an individual and excessive burden (see, among many other authorities, The Former King of Greece and Others, cited above, §§ 89-90 ). 2. Application to the present case (a) Admissibility 62. The Court notes that it was common ground between the parties that the retirement benefits of a civil servant in Cyprus constituted a possession under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Indeed, in the light of its case-law (see paragraph 58 above), the Court finds that the applicant, when entering the civil service, acquired a right which amounted to a “possession” and that therefore this provision is applicable in the present case. 63. The Court further notes this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. (b) Merits 64. The parties agreed that the forfeiture of the applicant ’ s retirement benefits amounted to an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Furthermore, it was not in dispute that the interference, which was based on the unambiguous wording of section 79(7) of the Public Service Law, was lawful in terms of both domestic and Convention law. The Court, taking into account its relevant case-law, sees no reason to hold otherwise. 65. The Court notes in this respect that the reduction or forfeiture of a retirement pension acts neither as a control of use nor a deprivation of property, but that it falls to be considered under the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 (see Klein, § 49, and Banfield, both cited above). 66. Accordingly, it is the issue of proportionality which lies at the heart of the case. This being so, the Court must determine whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual ’ s fundamental rights. 67. The Court has no doubt that it was appropriate for the national authorities to bring disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in addition to the criminal ones and, given the applicant ’ s reprehensible misconduct and the nature and gravity of the offences, to opt for the most serious penalty, namely dismissal. Indeed, this is acknowledged by the applicant (see paragraph 5 6 above), whose grievance is concentrated rather on the automatic forfeiture of all his retirement rights upon his dismissal. 68. In this connection, the Court reiterates that in the case of Banfield (cited above) it held that, having regard to the margin of appreciation allowed to States in making appropriate provision for its civil servants ’ pensions, it did not consider it inherently unreasonable for provision to be made for reduction or even total forfeiture of pensions in suitable cases. More recently, the Court has observed in general (see Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal ((dec.), no. 13341/14, 1 September 2015) and Stefanetti and Others, cited above, § 59, 15 April 2014 ), that the deprivation of the entirety of a pension was likely to breach Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Apostolakis, cited above, and Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland, no. 60669/00, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX ) and that, conversely, the imposition of a reduction which it considers to be reasonable and commensurate would not (see, for example, among many other authorities, Da Silva Carvalho Rico, and Valkov and Others, both cited above; Arras and Others v. Italy, no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012; Poulain v. France (dec.), no. 52273/08, 8 February 2011; and, a contrario, Stefanetti and Others, cited above). It is evident, however, from the relevant case-law, that whether or not the right balance has been struck will very much depend on the circumstances and particular factors of a given case which may tip the scales one way or the other. 69. In the present case, the applicant, after pleading guilty to a number of very serious offences which included obtaining a substantial amount of money by false pretences, forging cheques, concealment and abuse of office (see paragraph 8 above), was sentenced to five years ’ imprisonment (criminal case no. 18115/02). In passing sentence the Nicosia Assize Court took into account another eight similar criminal cases pending against the applicant. A total of 223 criminal charges against the applicant were involved. 70. Following the applicant ’ s conviction in the above case and, after receiving the Attorney-General ’ s advisory opinion that the offences committed involved dishonesty or moral turpitude, the PSC initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The applicant was able to make representations before the PSC before the decision on the disciplinary penalty was taken. In particular, through his lawyer, the applicant put forward a number of mitigating factors and submitted a report by the Department of Social Welfare Services on his financial situation (see paragraph 13 above). Thereafter, the decision of the PSC was reviewed by the Supreme Court at two levels of jurisdiction. In addition, unlike in the case of Apostolakis (cited above), there were disciplinary proceedings which were separate from the criminal proceedings, and the applicant ’ s personal position was considered in depth before the PSC decided on the penalty to be imposed. The Court finds, and indeed the parties do not contest, that the applicant benefited from extensive procedural guarantees (see Banfield, cited above). 71. The Court observes that it was open to the PSC to impose any of the ten penalties provided for by section 79(1) of the Public Service Law. In the circumstances, it was inevitable that the penalty imposed on the applicant would be at the more severe end of the sliding scale of penalties, and after hearing the applicant ’ s counsel, the PSC chose the most severe penalty, namely dismissal. As a result, section 79(7) of the above Law applied, that is, the applicant forfeited his retirement benefits. 72. In practice, and again differently from the case of Apostolakis, that did not leave the applicant without any means of subsistence. In this respect the Court notes that the forfeiture concerned the applicant ’ s public service retirement benefits, that is, a retirement lump sum and a monthly pension (see paragraph 17 above). He remained eligible to receive, and did receive from August 2012, a social security pension from the Social Insurance Fund to which he and his employer had contributed (see paragraph 39 above). 73. Furthermore, a widow ’ s pension was paid to his wife pursuant to section 79(7) of the Public Service Law (a provision which was not applicable in the case of Azinas; see the Grand Chamber judgment, cited above, §§ 21-22), which ensured that his family immediately received a pension based on the assumption that he had died rather than been dismissed. It is true that the Court found, in the Apostolakis case, that the fact that a pension had been transferred to Mr Apostolakis ’ s family did not suffice to offset the loss of his own pension, as it considered that in future he could lose all means of subsistence and all social cover, for example, if he became a widower or divorced ( see Apostolakis, cited above, § 40). The Court finds, however, that this reasoning cannot be applied in the present case as the applicant has not claimed that during the seven year period between his dismissal and the date when he became eligible and started to receive a social security pension, he was unable to benefit for any reason from the pension paid to his wife and family. Following that, he began to receive his social security pension in full; his public service retirement pension would in any event have been set off against the amount of the social security pension (see paragraph 5 8 above). In addition his wife continued and continues to receive a part of the widow ’ s pension (see paragraphs 39 and 5 8 above). 74. Weighing the seriousness of the offences committed by the applicant against the effect of the disciplinary measures (see, inter alia, paragraph 47 above) and taking all the above factors into consideration, the Court finds that the applicant was not made to bear an individual and excessive burden. 75. It follows that there has been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 12 AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION 76. The applicant complained that the deprivation of his retirement benefits, on the ground that his wife and dependents would still benefit from it, had been discriminatory on the basis of his marital status, and therefore contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 as well as Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No.1. Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 read as follows: Article 14 “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 “1. The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” 77. The Government contested that argument. 78. The Court notes that the applicant ’ s complaint as to discrimination is triggered by the findings made by the Supreme Court, at first instance, and in particular, the weight that the court gave to the payment of a widow ’ s pension to his wife from the day of his dismissal pursuant to section 79(7) of the Public Service Law. 79. The Court notes that the clear aim of section 79(7) of the Public Service Law was to ensure that the effects of deprivation of a pension affected the person against whom disciplinary proceedings had been brought, and not his or her family. This provision benefited the applicant ’ s family and did not adversely affect him in any way. 80. Accordingly, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 81. Lastly, the applicant complained that he had been unable to contest the legality of the decision of the PSC, that the decision had become unassailable, and that he had been deprived of effective access to court. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention. This provision reads as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 82. The Court notes that the applicant ’ s complaint under this provision is in effect a complaint about right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court observes, however, that the applicant was able to challenge the decision of the PSC before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the merits of the applicant ’ s arguments at first instance and on appeal, but he was unsuccessful, as it was ruled at both levels that the forfeiture of his retirement benefits resulting from his dismissal had been proportionate. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the applicant was deprived of his right of access to court. The mere fact that the outcome of the proceedings was not favourable to the applicant is not equivalent to depriving him of this right. 83. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Weighing the seriousness of the offences committed by the applicant, involving a total of 223 criminal charges of, among other things, dishonesty, obtaining money under false pretences, forging cheques and abuse of office, against the effect of the disciplinary measures, the Court found that he had not been made to bear an individual and excessive burden.