Date when decision was rendered: 28.2.2001

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstolen = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: Report No. 9775:99

Reference to source

Electronic database for the decisions of the Insurance Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för försäkringsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin vakuutusoikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, pension,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, pension,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, eläke,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6

Abstract

The Social Insurance Institution of Finland (Kansaneläkelaitos; KELA) had granted A a disability pension under the national pension system.A appealed to a specific appellate board against the decision as far as it concerned the date starting from which the pension was granted.The board dismissed A's appeal.A appealed further to the Insurance Court and claimed, among other things, that there was reason to doubt the impartiality of a member of the appellate board.The member, B, had earlier participated in the decision-making concerning A's application for a disability pension submitted to the Local Government Pensions Institution (Kuntien eläkevakuutus) under the earnings-related pension scheme.The application had been rejected.

The Insurance Court first discussed impartiality on the basis of Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, which provides, among other things, that a judge is disqualified if he or she has participated in the handling of the same matter before another court or authority, is a party to the matter, or may expect to be benefitted or disadvantaged by the matter.The Court noted that KELA makes its decisions on the basis of the National Pensions Act and is not dependent on the decisions of pensions institutions, made under other, specific Acts.A person applying for a pension may find it difficult to understand that decisions made under the national pension system on the one hand and the earnings-related pension system on the other may differ from each other.This may result in an insufficient pension security for the applicant.That is why a certain uniformity of decisions is sought in legal practice, in spite of the fact that the two pension systems differ slightly with regard to the definition of disability applied in each system.Consequently, decisions made under the National Pensions Act may have an effect on the decisions by pensions institutions.The Insurance Court stated that as another pensions institution (Maatalousyrittäjien eläkelaitos, the Farmers' Social Insurance Institution) was mainly responsible for A's pension, the decision of the appellate board in A's case could not be expected to cause any specific benefit or damage to B or to the pensions institution he represented.B was not a member of the decision-making bodies of KELA nor employed by KELA.Disability pensions covered by two different pension systems could not be considered the same matter in the meaning of the impartiality provisions in the Code of Judicial Procedure.The Insurance Court concluded that B could not be disqualified on the basis of the Code of Judicial Procedure.

The Insurance Court then discussed Article 6 of the ECHR.It noted that nothing in the case indicated that there was reason to doubt B's subjective impartiality.However, there were grounds to suspect that B's objective impartiality had been jeopardized.B was the managing director of the Local Government Pensions Institution and had signed the decisions concerning A's pension.In fact, B had not participated in the handling of A's pension application.However, an outsider is not aware of the details of the decision-making procedure within the pensions institution.From an outsider's point of view, B's signature could indicate that B had participated in making the decision on the matter.Both the pensions institution and the appellate board dealt with A's disability.From A's point of view, they dealt with one and the same matter.The Court concluded, that A's doubts to the effect that B could have had a preconception of the matter could therefore be considered justifiable.

30.10.2002 / 12.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 16.12.2008

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstol = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: Report no. 273:2007

Reference to source

Electronic database for the decisions of the Insurance Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för försäkringsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin vakuutusoikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

right to property, pension,
äganderätt, pension,
omistusoikeus, eläke,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 8-4-3 and 10-8 of the State Employees' Pensions Act (280/1966); Act (1217/2004) amending the State Employees' Pensions Act, provision on entry into force, subsections 2 and 6; sections 15 and 106 of the Constitution Act

= lag om statens pensioner (280/1966) 8 § 4 mom. 3 punkten och 10 § 8 mom.; lag om ändring av lagen om statens pensioner (1217/2004), ikraftträdandebestämmelsen 2 mom. och 6 mom.; grundlagen 15 § och 106 §

= valtion eläkelaki (280/1966) 8 § 4 mom. 3 kohta ja 10 § 8 mom.; valtion eläkelain muuttamisesta annetun lain (1217/2004) voimaantulosäännös 2 mom. ja 6 mom.; perustuslaki 15 § ja 106 §

Abstract

The amended State Employees' Pensions Act had been applied in X's case to the effect that the total amount of his monthly pension was some 1,850 euros smaller than it would have been had the amendments not been made.The decision on X's pension was made by the State Treasury two months after the coming into force of the amendments.The Insurance Court studied the preparatory materials of the amending Act and found that the drafters' intention was not to interfere with the amount of pension accrued before the coming into force of the amendments.Moreover, the amending Act had been enacted as an ordinary Act of Parliament and not in the order prescribed for the enactment of constitutional legislation.Therefore, it was not expected to infringe the right to property as prescribed in the Constitution Act.The Insurance Court also referred to section 106 of the Constitution Act which provides that, if the application of an Act is in evident conflict with the Constitution, the court shall give primacy to the provision in the Constitution.The Insurance Court ruled that it must take this provision into account when deciding cases under the amended State Employees' Pensions Act.The court concluded that, in this case, applying the amended Act had reduced the total amount of X's pension to such an extent that the amendments must be considered to have caused an unreasonable and unexpected diminishing of X's accrued pension benefits.With reference to the preparatory materials of the amending Act and applying a "constitutional-rights affirmative" interpretation, the Insurance Court referred the matter back to the State Treasury for appropriate action.

22.4.2010 / 22.4.2010 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 4.9.2008

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. 1822; S2007/149

Reference to source

KKO 2008:83.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2008 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2008 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2008 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2009

Pages: pp. 597-601

Subject

pension, right to property,
pension, äganderätt,
eläke, omistusoikeus,

Relevant legal provisions

the State Employees' Pensions Act (280/1966); Act (638/1994) amending the State Employees' Pensions Act; sections 15 and 106 of the Constitution Act

= lag om statens pensioner (280/1966); lag om ändring av lagen om statens pensioner (638/1994); grundlagen 15 § och 106 §

= valtion eläkelaki (280/1966); valtion eläkelain muuttamisesta annettu laki (638/1994); perustuslaki 15 § ja 106 §

Abstract

A group of state employees had instituted proceedings against the state before the court of first instance.They claimed that in amending the State Employees' Pensions Act, the state had violated their basic civil rights, in particular their right to property, as prescribed in the Constitution Act and the ECHR.The complainants also asked the court to confirm that their pension would be determined by the Act as in force before the amendments, because this would be more beneficial to them.The court should also order the state to pay damages.The court of first instance dismissed the case on the grounds that pension issues do not fall within the jurisdiction of general courts.The court of appeal agreed with the lower court.Also the Supreme Court referred to the fact that the state employees' pension issues are decided in the first instance by the State Treasury and further by the Employee Pensions Appeal Board and the Insurance Court in the last instance.Under section 106 of the Constitution Act, a court may examine the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament only in relation to a matter which is being tried by the court.A court cannot thus assess on a general level whether a provision is in conflict with the Constitution.The Supreme Court held that it is not possible to assess the alleged violation of the complainants' basic and human rights, as manifested in reduced pension benefits, or the claim for compensation for violation of basic rights before it is determined how the State Employees' Pensions Act is applied in respect of the complainants.This decision rests in the final instance with the Insurance Court.In deciding pension issues, the Insurance Court shall, if necessary, also take into account section 106 of the Constitution Act and shall give primacy to the provision in the Constitution if a provision in the State Employees' Pensions Act is in evident conflict with the Constitution.A possible violation of basic rights can thus be avoided by applying section 106 of the Constitution Act, provided there are sufficient grounds thereto.The Supreme Court dismissed the case and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.

26.4.2010 / 26.4.2010 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 11.2.2010

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstol = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: Report no. 1311:2008

Reference to source

Electronic database for the decisions of the Insurance Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för försäkringsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin vakuutusoikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

pension, appeal, access to court, constitution,
pension, ändringssökande, rätt till domstolsprövning, grundlagen,
eläke, muutoksenhaku, oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn, perustuslaki,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 128-2 and 129-2 of the Employees' Pensions Act; section 6 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act; section 21 of the Constitution Act

= lag om pension for arbetstagare 128 § 2 mom. och 129 § 2 mom; förvaltningsprocesslag 6 §; grundlagen 21 §

= työntekijän eläkelaki 128 § 2 mom. ja 129 § 2 mom.; hallintolainkäyttölaki 6 §; perustuslaki 21 §

Abstract

X had been granted an old-age pension.In the pension application, X had told he had been working both in Finland and in Sweden but was not going to apply for pension in Sweden.X was not satisfied with the amount of the pension and appealed the pension provider's decision to the Employee Pensions Appeal Board.The Appeal Board referred to the Employees' Pensions Act which provides that a party who has been insured in two or more EU countries and who is dissatisfied with the decision issued by the pension provider may appeal the decision after having received the summarised statement containing decisions of all the EU countries, as referred to in Article 48 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 574/72 on the implementation of EC Regulation on social security.The Appeal Board found that without the summarised statement, there is no right of appeal and dismissed X's appeal as premature without considering it.The pension provider appealed the decision of the Appeal Board to the Insurance Court and requested that X's appeal concerning the pension amount is considered in order to safeguard X's legal rights.The Insurance Court noted that X had indicated that he was not going to apply for pension in Sweden, at least not yet.Therefore, X would not at this stage obtain the requested summarised statement.Consequently, if the Appeal Board's decision remained the final decision concerning X's right of appeal, this would jeopardize X's constitutional right to have a decision pertaining to his pension reviewed by a court of law or other independent organ for the administration of justice.The Insurance Court concluded that in order to ensure the protection of X's constitutional rights, it is necessary that the Appeal Board considers at this stage X's claim concerning the adjustment of the amount of the pension, despite the fact that this deviates from the provisions on the regular appeals procedure as provided for in section 129 of the Employees' Pensions Act and the relevant EU regulations on social security.

15.11.2012 / 16.11.2012 / RHANSKI