Disproportionate refusal to grant a disability pension violates the right to protection of property - Grobelny v. Poland 1
| DOI | 10.1177/1388262720961403 |
| Author | Marcin Wujczyk |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Case commentaries |
EJSS
Case Report
European Journal of Social Security
2020, Vol. 22(3) 333–337
Disproportionate refusal
ª The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
to grant a disability pension
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1388262720961403
violates the right to protection
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejs
of property - Grobelny
v. Poland1
Marcin Wujczyk
Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Wydzial Prawa i Administracji, Krakow, Poland
Keywords
European Court of Human Rights, social security, benefit, persons with disabilities, right to
property
The subject-matter of the present analysis is a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights
of 5 March 2020 delivered in the case Grobelny v. Poland (60477/12). The case concerned
deprivation of an applicant of her right to the previously received disability pension. The European
Court of Human Rights held that it constituted a disproportionate violation of the right to protec-
tion of property and consequently – a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European
Convention on Human Rights.2
Facts of the case
Mr. Mieczysław Grobelny was insured in the Farmers’ Social Security Fund as a farmer. In the
period from 1994 to 31 March 2008, Mr. Grobelny was receiving a disability pension from the
1. 60477/12, 5 March 2020.
2. ‘Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his
possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles
of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such
laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment
of taxes or other contributions or penalties.’
Corresponding author:
Marcin Wujczyk, Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Wydzial Prawa i Administracji, Bajeczna 4/39 Krakow, 31-007 Poland.
E-mail: marcin.wujczyk@uj.edu.pl
334
European Journal of Social Security 22(3)
Fund because he was completely unfit for farm work.3 As a result of the examinations conducted
by the experts of the Fund, as of 1 April 2008, payment of the disability pension to Mr. Grobelny
was refused due to the determination that he was no longer completely unfit for farm work. The
court proceedings conducted as a result of an appeal against the decision of the Fund upheld this
decision.4
On 19 January 2010, the applicant re-filed the request for being granted a disability pension. As
a result thereof, the Fund considered Mr. Grobelny as being temporarily completely unfit for farm
work from 17 December 2009 until 28 February 2011. Nevertheless, on 6 April 2010, the Fund
refused the applicant’s request for a disability pension, finding that he had not paid social insurance
contributions for the required period of time; one of the conditions for being granted...
To continue reading
Request your trial