Retroactive pension cuts to judges, prosecutors and members of the Legal Council of State were declared unconstitutional, a new "black hole" for the notional surplus of the government!
One more severe headache in the government's economic team is caused by the almost expected decision of the Full Court of Auditors, which considers unconstitutional the cuts on pensions imposed by the memorandum Law 4093/2012. That's because it will need around 150 million euros for the judicial officers from the 500 million euros relating to retrospective amounts and corrections of the payroll of the uniformed. Indeed, the headache becomes stronger, if someone considers that this judgment is to be a "pilot" for all the pending cases of retired special salary scales, as is the uniformed, diplomats, managers of public hospital doctors, university professors, etc.
Reportedly, almost unanimously, the Plenary of the Supreme Court considered unconstitutional, decision contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, the retroactive pension cuts of judges, prosecutors and members of the State Legal from August 1st, 2012. The Plenary declared that retroactive pension cuts for judges, prosecutors under memorandum Law 4093/2012 are contrary to the constitutional principle of proportionality and to its constitutional rule of equality in public burdens. It also declared that they impinge directly on the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR, which protects the property in the concept of salaries and pensions.
The judges though they accept that the state may reduce pensions costs (like their salaries) underline that this reduction can't be done without first assessing the financial benefit in relation to the impact of this reduction and if the reduction is necessary or could be compensated by other cheaper measures having equivalent effect. However the judges gave a "window" to the Treasury, after reversing its previous law, declaring that the limitation period for the retired is two years rather than five directly reducing the retroactive claim. On this basis, it upheld the relevant appeal of the Ministry of Finance.