The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has dismissed five claims submitted by 450 public and related sector employees and retirees from Cyprus. The cases, filed under Constantinou and Others v. Cyprus, challenged the constitutionality of measures enacted during the economic crisis, including pay and pension deductions. The decision is of particular importance in the context of the nation’s public finances.
Details Of The Case
The claimants contested the constitutional validity of Law 168(I)/2012 and Law 112(I)/2011. These laws mandated temporary cuts and extraordinary contributions on salaries and pensions for public sector employees. Prior to reaching the ECtHR, similar appeals had been rejected by Cyprus’s Supreme Court, adding weight to the contested decisions.
Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram
Claims And Legal Arguments
The litigants argued that the measures violated their right to property (as provided by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and their right to a fair trial (guaranteed by Article 6). Some claimants further alleged discrimination compared to their counterparts in the private sector.
Court’s Reasoning
The ECtHR found no basis for claims of unequal treatment. The court clarified that public sector employees are inherently distinct from private sector workers because their wages and pensions are directly linked to the state budget. In addressing the issue of a fair trial, the Court concluded that there was no deviation in the legal reasoning of the Supreme Court, the decisions of which were adequately substantiated.
Justification And Public Interest Considerations
While acknowledging that the pay and pension cuts did interfere with the right to property, the ECtHR emphasized several critical points:
- The measures were enacted in accordance with national law;
- They were upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court;
- They addressed a compelling public interest during an era of severe economic crisis;
- The deductions were proportionate and implemented on a gradual basis;
- They were designed to be temporary; and
- A fair balance was maintained between the exigencies of public interest and the rights of the claimants.
Decision And Key Voices
The ruling, delivered by a majority of five judges, was accompanied by dissenting opinions from Judges Georgios Sergidis and Anna Adamska-Gallant. The case was argued on behalf of the General Public Prosecutor by the Senior Advocate of the Republic, Theodora Christodoulidou.
Implications For Cyprus
This decision underscores the judiciary’s deference to legislative measures implemented in times of crisis, illuminating how such measures are scrutinized against constitutional safeguards while balancing public interests. The ECtHR’s stance may influence future legislative actions regarding public sector finance amidst economic challenges.
For further context on the legislative measures in question, refer to pay and pension cut regulations.
