Areios Pagos appealed to the Supreme Special Court (SSC). for a final judgment on whether or not the abolition of the three gifts-allowances (Christmas, Easter and summer leave) in the supplementary pensions of the private sector for the 11 months from 11.6.2015 to 11.5.2016, made with the “Katrougalou law ».

The Areopagites referred the matter to the AED, as well issued a decision which ruled contrary to a series of decisions of the Plenary of the Council of State in the pension regime of the abolition of gifts.

More specifically, nine years after the decision of the Plenary of the Council of State, which by a majority (14 in favor against 11 against) has deemed unconstitutional and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) the cuts of all three gifts of supplementary pensions made in 2012, the Supreme Court comes to judge that the abolition of the three gifts made with the memorandum law 4093/2012 are constitutional and in line with the ECHR, as “their enactment served purposes of public interest” and not only that.

It is reminded that the cut of Christmas, Easter and summer leave allowances, was imposed by article one paragraph IA sub-paragraph IA.6 case 3 of the law 4093/2012 which was made due to the Memorandum of Understanding.

The B2 Labor Department of the Supreme Court, chaired by the vice-president Nikolaos Pipiligas and the rapporteur the Areopagite Konstantina Nakou, unanimously formulates a legal opinion contrary to that of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court, refuting with its own extensive legal considerations No. 2287/2015 (and other) decision of the Plenary Session of the CoE.

According to the Areopagites, it is not constitutionally necessary to draw up an actuarial impact study before abolishing the benefits, as the Plenary Session of the Council of Ministers has decided, but its jurisprudence on this matter is also fixed.

The ground-breaking decision notes that according to the constitutional imperatives, the validity of the disputed legislation does not require “prior preparation of a study of the effects of the regulations (abolition of gifts) on the pensioners’ standard of living, after taking into account the other financial burdens thereof”.

Thus, due to conflicting decisions between the SC and the Supreme Court, the labor judges of the B2 Department referred the issue of the constitutionality or otherwise of the abolition of the supplementary pensions for the disputed 11 months to the AED for a final judgment.

Plenary session of the CoE

The SC, with a series of decisions of its Plenary (2287- 2290/2015) has judged that the pension cuts made in 2012 conflict with constitutional principles, such as proportionality and equality in public burdens and other requirements of articles of the Constitution , such as articles 2, 4, 22, 25, 106, etc.

According to the Plenary Session of the CoE, the Constitution requires the state, when measures are taken to cut pensions, to carry out “a special and thorough and scientifically documented study, from which it can be concluded at once that the specific measures (ss: pension cut ) is indeed expedient but also necessary to effectively deal with the problem of the viability of social security institutions in view of the factors that caused it, so that the adoption of these measures is in accordance with the constitutional principles of proportionality and equality in public burdens, on the other hand, that the effects of these measures on the living standards of the affected persons, combined with any other measures taken (fiscal etc.), but also with the totality of the socio-economic conditions of the given situation, do not have a cumulative effect such that it leads to impermissible, a violation of the core of the constitutional right to social security”.

In particular, the Plenary decided that before the cuts made in 2012 there was no scientific study on the effects that will exist on the living standards of pensioners from the pension cuts, but also the necessity of these cuts.

The B2 Labor Department of the AP

Anonyme Banking Company, from 1-1-2013 stopped paying holiday and holiday allowances to its bank employees and some of these employees appealed to the courts. In the Court of First Instance the workers won, but the Court of Appeal took the opposite view. Thus, the retired bank employees appealed to the Supreme Court asking for the appellate decision to be overturned.

In more detail, the labor judges of the B2 Department of the CA state:

“The provision in question (ss: on the abolition of the three gifts) does not contravene Article 22 par. 5 of the Constitution, does not violate the fair balance between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of the appellant’s rights and, therefore, it does not contravene the principle of proportionality enshrined in article 25 par. 1 of the Constitution, nor in article 1 of the First Additional Protocol of the ECHR, which, moreover, does not guarantee the right to permanent receipt of salaries and pensions of a certain amount, unless there is a case of jeopardizing the decent livelihood of the interested parties, which, as it was accepted, does not apply in this case.

Additionally, the Areopagites continue:

“The abolition from 1-1-2013 of the three allowances for pensioners of the mentioned bodies and sectors of main and auxiliary insurance, is part of a network of regulations with which the legislator, faced with the economic collapse of the country and unable to finance the social security organizations to the same extent as in the past, it established a new social security system, the viability of which is supported alongside the reduced state resources allocated for this purpose, and specific categories of pensioners with the extended characteristics”.

Therefore, continues the Labor Department of the Supreme Court, “the controversial abolition of holiday and vacation allowances is supported by the law, and is part of a wider program, on the one hand, to restore the country’s fiscal balance and, on the other hand, in accordance with the requirement of article 22 par. 5 of the Constitution, for the reform of the insurance system, for the sake of its sustainability.

Consequently, their establishment serves purposes of public interest and not, simply, the financial interest of the State or the other Social Security bodies, as the amounts that are cut remain in the property of the above organizations to strengthen their viability and, consequently, the service of pensioners Overall”.

Finally, the president of the CoE and president of the AED, Evangelia Nikas, is expected to determine the date of the trial of the disputed case.