By Helena Galaris

Unnecessary to judge which decision to prevail, that of the Supreme Court, which ruled the abolition of auxiliary pensions as a constitutional or the Council of State which it has ruled was unconstitutional, said the Supreme Special Court.

And this was because it thought that the CoE and Supreme Court decisions are not opposed and are normally valid.

The Supreme Special Court was invited to rule on the constitutionality of cuts in public sector pensions for 11 months from 11.6.2015 to 11.5.2016 made under the “Katrougalou Law”.

According to the ruling, money will be made by those pensioners who had appealed to the administrative courts for cuts in supplementary pensions until 21/7/2020.

Those who had appealed after July 2020, will not be made money, but not even the pensioners of the Bank of Greece’s shareholder fund, for whom the Supreme Court’s decision was made constitutional.

“The Supreme Special Court ruled that it lacks jurisdiction due to non -contradiction between the Supreme Court’s decision 1509/2023 and the CoE 2287 and 2088/2015. This is because the Council of State, decided in favor of unconstitutionality, limited its crisis to retired public social security bodies, based on the compulsory (auxiliary) social security and “in the consequent provision of the state exclusively by the state or by the state” The cumulative effect of the remedy with all the prior to the years 2000 to 2012, multiple consecutive legislative cuts of pensions, judging – the quantity and intensity of this category of pensioners – that it was constitutionally but constitutionally but constituted, in the years 2000 to 2012. The preparation of a special scientifically documented study of the influence of the remedy on the core of the social security right of these pensioners did not leave. ” refers to the rationale.

On the other hand the Supreme Court, “In the light of the legal framework provided by the Bank of Greece itself, that is, by a legal entity of private law, an auxiliary insurance of its pensioners, taking into account the prior pension cuts, which, however, were not concerned with the whole, and in particular to the Most of them, the Bank’s pensioners, and also taking into account, however, that the amount of the aforementioned pensions of the insured in the above bank remains higher than the average main and auxiliary pension of IKA-ETAM. above provision. “

The court order concludes: “Therefore, in the Supreme Special Court, due to the substantive differentiation of the legal and actual background of cases and the corresponding, as opposed, decisions of the Supreme Court on the one hand and the Council of State on the other hand, it does not become critical and necessary for one hypothesis. The other court of interpretive approach to the issue of constitutionality or the same legislative provision and, therefore, there is no question of contradiction under Article 100 par.