-
.
- Ελληνικά
Rejection of an application by former civil servants for reductions in the rates of the lump sum
There are no conflicting decisions on the part of the Court of Appeal to justify the Supreme Constitutional Court to activate its power and decide in the third and final instance (Article 9(2)(c) of the Law.33/64), on the petition filed in relation to the amount of the lump sum former civil servants were entitled to receive upon retirement, the Supreme Constitutional Court responded in a unanimous decision dated 19 March 2024.
The petitioners' request was for the Supreme Constitutional Court to decide whether the decision of the Court of Appeal to consider as constitutional the variations in the calculation rates of the lump-sum allowance of former civil servants was contrary to the Supreme Court's jurisprudence concerning reductions in remuneration and pensions and the suspension of pensions.
The applicants had originally brought an action before the Administrative Court seeking the annulment of the law providing for a reduction in the lump sum which former civil servants were entitled to receive on retirement. The court of first instance, relying on previous case law, upheld the applicants, concluding that there had been a violation of Article 23 of the Constitution. The Attorney General of the Republic appealed against the original judgment, with the Court of Appeal unanimously holding that the court's judgment at first instance was wrong and setting it aside. Following this development, the applicants appealed to the Supreme Constitutional Court asking it to decide whether there is a contradiction between the Koutselini-Ioannidou and Others v decision. Republic and Others, which concerned the suspension of the payment of pensions to pensioners who received a salary from an office held after their retirement, and the judgment in Charalambous and Others. v. Republic[/I] concerning exceptional deductions from the salaries of civil servants in response to the economic crisis, and the decision Republic v. Avgusti which concerned the reductions in salaries and pensions also made in response to the economic crisis.
According to the applicants' claim before the Supreme Constitutional Court, the Court of Appeal did not follow the decision in Koutselini-Ioannidou and Others v. Republic and Others, which, they argued, reflected sound legal principles, and asked the Supreme Constitutional Court to activate its power to hear the application in order to rule on it in the third and final instance (Article 9(2)(c) of Law 33/64).
In considering the matter, the Supreme Constitutional Court proceeded to dismiss their petition, saying that it did not meet the requirements of Article 9(2)(c) of Law 33/64 for the matter to be considered by the court of third instance. This was because their application did not demonstrate conflicting or contradictory decisions of the Court of Appeal, namely Koutselini-Ioannidou et alv. Republic and Others, Charalambous and Others. v. Republic and Republicv. Augustis since these were decisions of the Supreme Court and not of the Court of Appeal.
In particular, the Supreme Constitutional Court, stressing that the disputes arose not from different legal contradictions but from different facts and different legal interests based on different pieces of legislation, decided the present case on its own facts, stating that the applicants were not entitled to a specific amount of a lump sum. By extension, the Court of Appeal's finding that the applicants did not have a crystallized right to a specific amount of a lump sum did not contradict settled case law on this issue, but was consistent with it.
The Supreme Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants' claims and awarded costs in favour of the Republic.
The case was handled on behalf of the Attorney General of the Republic by Ms Elena Simeonidou, Senior Advocate of the Republic.
(MΛ)
Contents of this article including associated images are owned by PIO
Views & opinions expressed are those of the author and/or PIO
Source
