Last Updated on August 22, 2019 by LawEuro
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 217
April 2018
Čakarević v. Croatia – 48921/13
Judgment 26.4.2018 [Section I]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Peaceful enjoyment of possessions
Demand for retrospective repayment of welfare benefit mistakenly administered and constituting the applicant’s sole source of income: violation
Facts – In 1996 the Employment Bureau granted the applicant unemployment benefits for a fixed period of time which was subsequently renewed until further notice. In March 2001 the Bureau found that she had been receiving the benefit beyond the twelve-month period allowed by law and terminated her entitlement with effect from June 1998. The Bureau brought a civil action against the applicant for unjust enrichment, seeking repayment of about EUR 2,600, together with statutory interest, on the basis of the unemployment benefits she had received between June 1998 and March 2001. The domestic courts upheld the repayment order.
Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(a) Applicability – An individual should be entitled to rely on the validity of a final administrative decision in his or her favour, and on the implementing measures already taken pursuant to it, provided that neither the beneficiary nor anyone on his or her behalf had contributed to such a decision having been wrongly made or wrongly implemented. Thus, while an administrative decision could be subject to revocation for the future (ex nunc), an expectation that it should not be called into question retrospectively (ex tunc) was to be recognised as being legitimate, unless there were weighty reasons to the contrary in the general interest or in the interest of third parties.
Several circumstances spoke in favour of recognising the applicant’s legal position as protected by a “legitimate expectation” for the purposes of the application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Firstly, there was no indication that the applicant had contributed to the disbursement of the benefits being continued beyond the applicable statutory time-limit. Secondly, the applicant had received the unemployment benefits in good faith. Thirdly, the administrative decision had not contained any express mention of the fact that under the relevant statutory provisions the entitlement would expire on a certain date. Fourthly, there was a long lapse of time after the expiry of the statutory time-limit during which the authorities had failed to react while continuing to make the monthly payments. Those circumstances were capable of inducing the applicant to believe that she was entitled to receive those payments. Therefore, taking into account the nature of the benefits as current support for basic subsistence needs, the applicant had a legitimate expectation of being able to rely on the payments she had received as rightful entitlements. The fact that the courts had subsequently established that the payments had taken place without a legal basis in domestic law was thus not decisive. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was applicable.
(b) Compliance – Unlike in Moskal v. Poland, what was at issue was not the discontinuation of the applicant’s unemployment benefit but an obligation imposed on her to repay benefits already received in reliance on an administrative decision.
As regards the proportionality of the interference, the applicant had not been alleged to have contributed to the receipt of benefits beyond her legal entitlement. As the competent authority had taken a decision in the applicant’s favour and continued to make the respective payments, the applicant had a legitimate basis for assuming that the payments received were legally correct. It was not reasonable to conclude that the applicant was required to realise that she was in receipt of unemployment benefits beyond the statutory maximum period.
The authorities had failed in their duty to act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner. Even though the unemployment benefit payments which the applicant should not have received were entirely the result of an error of the State, the applicant had been ordered to repay the overpaid amount in full, together with statutory interest. Therefore, no responsibility on behalf of the State was established, and the State avoided any consequences of its own error with the burden being placed on the applicant only.
The applicant had been offered to repay her debt in sixty installments. However, the sum ordered to be repaid represented a significant amount of money for her given that she had been deprived of her only source of income, as well as her overall financial situation. The sum she had received on account of unemployment benefits was very modest and as such had been consumed for her subsistence. The national courts in ruling unjust enrichment had not taken into consideration the applicant’s health and economic situation. She had been suffering from a psychiatric condition, was incapable of working and had been unemployed for a long period of time. She had no bank accounts, no income of any sort, and no property of any significance. Such circumstances meant paying her debt even in installments would have put at risk her subsistence.
In sum, the requirement imposed on the applicant to reimburse the amount of the unemployment benefits paid to her in error by the competent authority beyond the statutory maximum period had entailed an excessive individual burden on her.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 2,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.
(See Moskal v. Poland, 10373/05, 15 September 2009, Information Note 122).
Leave a Reply