24 September 2013
The petitions – which were submitted by individuals referring to the violation of the right to property, prohibition of discrimination and right to social security – objected that the law maker had terminated the pension entitlements that had been already obtained before reaching the retirement age. The new regulation disposes of benefits prior to retirement age. Former Members of the Parliament and those who had service pension before, considered injurious that the sum of benefits prior to retirement age and the sum of service allowance are less than the sum of their pension before. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights has submitted a petition as well regarding the suspension of the service allowance.
The Constitutional Court has declared that – following the Closing and Miscellaneous Provisions of the Fundamental Law – Section 3 of Article 70/E of former Constitution authorized the law maker to reduce the sum of the pension before reaching the general retirement age, to change it into a social allowance, or to terminate the payment of the pension in case of ability to work. Due to the express constitutional authorisation, the violation of acquired rights, right to property and right to social security has not been determined. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court has declared that the concerned regulation did not violate the prohibition of discrimination as the different legal regulations for the concerned groups of people had constitutional reason.
However, the Constitutional Court has adjudicated contrary to the Fundamental Law and annulled the regulation which declared the suspension of the payment of service allowance in case of committal of serious crime before the entry into force of the concerned Act. It was declared that the concerned regulation violates the principle of rule of Law, as the offender who is entitled to receive service allowance could not be fully aware of the legal consequences of his or her action at the time of the committal of crime.
Dr. Egon Dienes-Oehm and Dr. Béla Pokol judges attached concurring opinion and Dr. Elemér Balogh, Dr. András Bragyova, Dr. László Kiss, Dr. Péter Kovács and Dr. Miklós Lévay judges attached dissenting opinion to the decision.