ARM-2014-1-002
a) Armenia / b) Constitutional Court / c) / d) 02-04-2014 / e) / f) On
the conformity with the Constitution of the provisions of Law on Cumulative
Pensions / g) Tegekagir (Official
Gazette) / h) .
Keywords of the Systematic Thesaurus:
|
Fundamental Rights - Civil and
political rights - Right to property. (Right to property, social protection, social
security, limitations ) |
|
|
Fundamental Rights - Economic, social
and cultural rights - Right to social security. |
|
|
Fundamental Rights - Economic, social
and cultural rights - Right to unemployment benefits. |
|
|
Fundamental Rights - Economic, social
and cultural rights - Right to a pension. |
.
Headnotes:
A sovereign, democratic, and social state
governed by the rule of law shall ensure prerequisites for the common
well-being and civil solidarity of the present workforce, as well as for the
different generations. Social security is a citizen’s right as well as a
purposeful function conditioned by the positive obligation of the state, as it
is aimed to guarantee the life of those strata of society who cannot do so.
Summary:
I. The applicants challenged several
provisions of the Law on Cumulative Pensions, contending that they contradict
the right to property, as the compulsory cumulative payment is not a public
interest. Any limitation to the right to property performed beyond the grounds
stipulated by the Constitution, they argue, cannot be legal. The applicants
also noted that the regulation stipulating the scope of the persons paying
compulsory cumulative payment is unconstitutional and contradicts the idea of a
social state.
II. After reviewing the applicants’ arguments and the
respective regulations in this case, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed the
legal approaches presented in its prior decisions concerning the right to
property. The Court emphasised that the Constitution recognises and protects the right to property, from which
the appropriate public-legal obligation of state emanates. The Court stated the
prerequisite of that obligation is that everyone has a right to possess, use,
dispose and bequeath his or her property at his or her discretion. That right
cannot be limited by law.
In light of the disputed regulations, the
Court established that some of them stipulate limitations inconsistent with
Article 31 of the Constitution and inconsistent with the legal approaches of
the Constitutional Court. The Court also held that the Constitution endowed the
government with the authority to exclusively govern state property. Governance
of the property of individuals and self-government bodies, however, cannot be
included in that authority by law.
The Court also underscored that the
Constitution declares the right to social security. One of the features of the
right is that the size and forms of social security are stipulated by law and
fall within the ambit of legislative discretion. According to the fundamental
principles of balance and proportionality, the Court underscored that the
limits of that discretion are conditioned by the social-economic possibilities
of the state balanced with the requirements of the constitutional nature of social
state. The Court stated that in Armenia, private pension payments are
contributions from additional compulsory payments from salary and taxes. The
social security system, however, is based on stable social payments, which is
more reliable.
The Court also highlighted several issues
concerned with the forms of legal regulation of the relations set forth in some
of the debated provisions. In this regard, the Court noted that the
Constitution stipulates the scope of the relations that could be regulated solely
by law, while the regulation of some of the relations of that kind is included
in the authority of various bodies other than legislature. In this light, the
Court declared those norms to be inconsistent with the Constitution.
The Court also held that it is necessary
to stipulate definite and different approaches to legal responsibility in
accordance with the nature of the regulations of the discussed law, as such regulations could become important guarantee
for the reliance on the debated system.
Governed by the aforementioned, the
Constitutional Court declared that some of the provisions are inconsistent with
the Constitution and void, in so far as they do not ensure everyone’s right to possess,
use, dispose and bequeath his or her salary at his or her discretion and lead
to limitation to the right to property beyond the person’s wish. Some of the
provisions have been declared unconstitutional as they do not stipulate
guarantees for the protection of human rights and do not define the limits of
the discretion of the executive power, as well as some of the provisions
stipulate authority to regulate the relations subject to regulation by
legislature for other bodies.
The Court also held that the provisions
declared consistent with the Constitution could not be interpreted and
implemented in the context which presumes limitation to right to property
beyond the person’s
will. The Constitutional Court also held that the provisions declared
inconsistent with the Constitution will become void on 30 September 2014.
Armenian.