[ad_1]
An unconstitutional ruling was held, according to information from the Union for the Defense of Labor and Social Protection (ENYPEKK), the law Catastroge 4387/2016 in several of his articles.
Prior to the plenary session of the State Council, complaints from individuals and groups had been discussed on 4/10/2017 to request the cancellation of certain articles. The plenary sessions of the Supreme Court of Cbadation have been completed for a long time, decisions have already been taken (even with large minorities), their release is being finalized and should be published in a few days.
According to some information, the decisions to be taken would be largely devoted to the issue of the retroactivity of claims for compensation under the provisions of the Insurance Act found to be unconstitutional.
On this crucial question about the lives and dignity of millions of pensioners and workers, as the union notes, it seems that the highest judges have adopted the same justification as the no. 2287/2015 of the plenary decision, namely the declaration of unconstitutionality of the provisions relating to the reduction of pensions of the second memorandum and the abolition of donations.
The same arguments, on the other hand, 431/2018 and 479/2018 decisions of the CoE for NHS doctors and TEI professors respectively, while the recent decision of the Court of Auditors 244/2017, which declared unconstitutional the 39 institution of the pension contribution, solidarity, was identical.
In view of the publication in the coming days of the CoE decisions on the reductions of the Katrugala law, HNICPK publishes part of the reasoning of the very important no. 2287/2015, which seems to be followed by the next decisions on the Catrush law. This means that retirees making a retrospective application will have the hope of having the right to justice after the publication of the decision.
The pbadage in question highlights the following elements to prohibit the retroactivity of claims:
More than words
"… In the present case, the aforementioned diagnosis of the unconstitutionality of the provisions of Article 6 (2) of Law 4051/2012 and the first paragraph of Paragraph IA5 about 1 and subp. IX.6.3 of Law 4093/2012 would oblige the Administration to respect the retroactive payment of pension benefits which, on the basis of these unconstitutional provisions, were limited not only to the applicant but also to a particularly wide circle of In the light of these facts, the Court, after balancing the public interest in the financial crisis and the well-known financial difficulties of the Greek state, baderts that the people concerned by this provision test trial. that the consequences of the unconstitutionality of the provisions in question will occur after the publication of this judgment.It is understood that the unconstitutionality found will be retroactive for applicants and other persons who have instituted legal remedies at the time of publication of the judgment. Accordingly, the unconstitutionality of these provisions can not be invoked to obtain relief from the claims of other pensioners for the termination of their pension benefits under these provisions for periods prior to the date of publication of this judgment. I have not maintained this point of view either with Article 20 (1) of the Constitution relating to the application for judicial protection, or with Article 6 (1) of the ECHR and Article 1 To the extent that, on the one hand, the retroactivity of the consequences of the decisions of the State Council is neither obvious nor exclusive of any other legislation and, On the other hand, the above-mentioned restriction does not interfere with the equitable balance between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of rights, although they do not deprive themselves of their rights, which are simply limited to the reasons for their Public interest mentioned above (see CF 4741/2014). & # 39;
From the press room of economo.gr
More news, reports and resolutions:CLICK HERE
Source link
