Would a Convention State breach any property rights if it does not adjust its social security benefits for inflation? This article discusses under which circumstances Article 1 Protocol 1 (A1P1) of the European Convention on Human Rights may require Convention States to uprate the real value of social benefit entitlements as a consequence of inflation. The methodology followed was both doctrinal and analytical legal research based on the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) case law. The text firstly considers why A1P1 may be engaged. The argument holds that lack of indexation of social benefits has a similar effect to their legislative reduction when it comes to the peaceful enjoyment of social security benefits. Afterwards it explores what follows for Convention States. Considering the literature on ‘positive’ obligations and A1P1, the article constructs a plausible case under which A1P1 would require Convention States to uprate (at least partially) a segment of social benefit entitlements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Case law
2.
Aka v Turkey 107/1997/891/1103 (23 September 1998).
3.
Akkus v Turkey App no 19263/92 (9 July 1997).
4.
Appolonov v Russia App no 67578/01 (First Section) (29 August 2002).
5.
Ayşe BAŞ v Turkey 68126/01 (Third Section) (23 November 1998).
6.
Béláné Nagy v Hungary [GC], App no 53080/13 (13 December 2016).
7.
Bellet, Huertas and Vialatte v France App no 40832/98 (20 April 1998).
8.
Boyajyan v Armenia App no 38003/04 (Third Section) (2 June 2011) § 54.
9.
Broniowski v Poland App no 31443/96 (22 June 2004).
10.
Carson and Others v the United Kingdom [GC] App no 42184/05 (2010).
11.
Christian Müller v Austria. App no 5849/72. Commission report adopted 1 October 1975.
12.
Dabić v Croatia App no 49001/14 (First Section) (18 March 2021).
13.
Dolneanu v Moldova App no 17211/03 (Fourth Section) (13 February 2008).
14.
Fakas v Ukraine App no 4519/11 (Fifth Section).
15.
Fedulov v Russia App no 53068/08 (Third Section) (8 October 2019).
16.
Gayduk and Others v Ukraine [GC] App no 45526/99, decision of 2 July 2002.
17.
Iatridis v Greece [GC] App no 31107/96, § 54, (ECHR 1999-II).
18.
James and Others v the United Kingdom App no 8793/79 (21 February 1986), Series A no. 98.
19.
Kjartan Ásmundsson v Iceland App no 60669/00 (12 October 2004).
20.
Kolesnyk v Ukraine App no 57116/10 (Fifth Section).
21.
Kopecky v Slovakia App no 44912/98 (GC) (28 September 2004).
22.
Maggio and others v Italy App nos 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08 (Second Section) (31 August 2011).
23.
Marckx v Belgium App no 6833/74 (ECtHR, 13 June 1979).
24.
O’Keeffe v Ireland App no 35810/09, Merits and Just Satisfaction (28 January 2014) [GC].
25.
ON v Bulgaria App no 35221/97 (Fourth Section) (6 April 2000).
26.
Öneryildiz v Turkey App no 48939/99 (30 November 2004).
27.
Poltorachenko v Ukraine App no 77317/01 (Second Section) (18 January 2005).
28.
Rasmussen v Poland, App no 38886/05 (28 April 2009).
29.
Richardson v the United Kingdom App no 26252/08 (Fourth Section) (11 October 2011).
30.
Ryabykh v Russia App no 52854/99 (First Section) (3 December 2003).
31.
Sherstyuk v Ukraine App no 37658/03 (Fifth Section) 18 September 2006.
32.
Stec and Others v the United Kingdom [GC] App nos 65731/01 and 65900/01 (6 July 2005) §51.
33.
Stefanetti and Others v Italy App nos 21838/10, 21849/10, 21852/10, 21855/10, 21860/10, 21863/10, 21869/10 and 21870/10 (Former Second Section) (15 April 2014).
34.
Sukhanov and Ilchenko v Ukraine App nos 68385/10 and 71378/10 (Fifth Section) (26 June 2014)
35.
Todorov v Bulgaria App no 65850/01 (Fifth Section) (13 May 2008).
36.
Valkov and Others v Bulgaria App nos 2033/04, 19125/04, 19475/04, 19490/04, 19495/04, 19497/04, 24729/04, 171/05 and 2041/05 (25 October 2011).
37.
X v the Federal Republic of Germany App no 8724/79 (6 March 1980).
38.
Zbaranskaya v Ukraine App no 43496/02 (11 October 2005).
39.
Books and Articles
40.
CousinsM (2021) Legitimate expectation and social security law under the European Convention of Human Rights. European Journal of Social Security23(1): 24–43.
41.
Díaz-SaavedraJ (2020) The fiscal and welfare consequences of the price indexation of Spanish pensions. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance19: 163–184.
42.
DonovanP (2015) The truth about inflation. London: Routledge.
HamburgerMJZwickB (1981) Deficits, money and inflation. Journal of Monetary Economics7(1): 141–150.
45.
HartHLAHonoréAM (1959) Causation in the law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
HelferLR (2008) The new innovation frontier - intellectual property and the European Court of Human Rights. Harvard International Law Journal49(1): 1–52.
47.
HoltugN (2018) Prioritarianism: Ex ante, ex post, or factualist criterion of rightness?The Journal of Political Philosophy27(2): 207–228.
Jimena QuesadaL (2014) El último bastión en la defensa de los derechos sociales: La carta social europea. RJUAM29: 171–189.
50.
Jimena QuesadaL (2020) El derecho a la protección contra la pobreza y la exclusión social como paradigma del respeto a la dignidad humana. La inserción del ingreso mínimo vital en el marco de la evolución de los estándares internacionales. Revista Jurídica de los Derechos Sociales, Lex Social10(2): 375.
51.
KratochvilJ (2011) The inflation of the margin of appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights29: 324–357.
52.
LavrysenL (2015) Strengthening the protection of human rights of persons living in poverty under the ECHR. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights33(3): 293–325.
53.
LeijtenI (2013) From Stec to Valkov: Possessions and margins in the social security case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review13: 309–349.
54.
LeijtenI (2019) The right to minimum subsistence and property protection under the ECHR: Never the twain shall meet?European Journal of Social Security21(4): 307–325.
55.
NinoCS (1991) The ethics of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OtsukaM (2012) Prioritarianism and the separateness of persons. Utilitas24(3): 365–380.
58.
PalierB (2021) Réformer les retraites. Paris: Presses de la fondation nationale des sciences politiques.
59.
ParfitD (1995) ‘‘Equality or priority?’’ The Lindley Lecture (Department of Philosophy, University of Kansas).
60.
PennerJ (2000) The idea of property in law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61.
RawlsJ (1974) Some reasons for the maximin criterion. The American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings of the Eighty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association64(2): 141–146.
62.
SchutteC (2004) The European fundamental right of property Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights: Its origins, its working, and its impact on national legal orders. Deventer: Kluwer.
63.
StoyanovaV (2018) Causation between state omission and harm within the framework of positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review18: 309–346.
64.
Van DijkPVan HoofFVan RijnA, et al. (eds) (2006) Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, 4th edAntwerp: Intersentia.
65.
Waldron (1985) What is private property?Oxford Journal of Legal Studies5(3): 313–349.
66.
WartonickDPackardM (1983) Slowing down pension indexing: The foreign experience. Social Security Bulletin6: 9–15.
67.
WhitehouseER (2009) Pensions, purchasing-power risk, inflation and indexation. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, no 77. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/227182142567.
