recent translations summaries
Decision 10/2020. (V. 28.) on the Benefits for Persons of Altered Working Ability
Conflict with an international treaty, a conflict with the Fundamental Law and annulling the Section 2 (1) a) aa) to ac) of the Act CXCI of 2011 on the Benefits for Persons of Altered Working Ability and on the Amendment of Certain Acts
Upon a judicial initiative, the Constitutional Court established as a constitutional requirement that in the course of determining the insured period as a precondition of the application for benefits under the Act on the Benefits for Persons of Altered Working Ability, if the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) establishes the violation of the right to property because certain benefit was not provided to the applicant, then the insured period resulting from the non-disbursed benefit shall also be taken into account. In the judicial initiative, the panel of the Curia initiated, in a lawsuit launched for the review of a social security decision, that the Constitutional Court declare a conflict with an international treaty by the provision of the Act on the Benefits for Persons of Altered Working Ability and on the Amendment of Certain Acts, which requires that the applicant should be able to verify a period of insurance for two thirds of the period prior to the submission of the application, as a precondition of the disbursement of the benefit. According to the petitioner, the challenged provision is contrary to the right to the protection of property enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and thereby it violates the provision of the Fundamental Law guaranteeing the compatibility of international law and Hungarian law. The Constitutional Court rejected the judicial initiative and found that the regulation could not be considered an unreasonable provision, not least because health insurance cash benefits are distinguished from benefits due on the basis of subjective rights, among other things, by the requirement to prove the previous insurance period. However, the Constitutional Court found that while the challenged provision is not in itself in conflict with an international treaty, the application of that provision in a specific, individual case may exceptionally lead to a result contrary to the Convention as an international treaty, with due account to the individual circumstances of the particular case. The Constitutional Court therefore established as a constitutional requirement that in the course of determining the period according to the challenged provision, the period of insurance arising from unpaid benefits should also be taken into account, if the ECtHR found a violation of the Convention in this regard in a final, individual decision binding on Hungary. The examination of the conditions according to the constitutional requirement is in all cases the task of the authorities or courts acting in the case.