www.firsttuesday.com

Home Page
Registration
Registration
Registration
Registration
Registration



SpanishGermanItalianFrenchRomanianPortuguese

Home Page | Subjects | Event | Media | Directory | Search | Registration | Links | Jobs | Log in
Presentation | FAQ | Contact | Security Info | General conditions | List of articles | Newsletters
Add Document | Alert | Directory Subscription

Commented ruling
Share on: Linkedin | Facebook | Twitter Go Print Send this article to a friend Back  Back

Title of Document: No breach of the convention on account of the supreme court’s validation of a new collective agreement altering a supplementary retirement pension scheme
Keywords: collective agreement , protection of property , supplementary retirement pension,
Author: cmiskp.echr.coe

Codex-online publication date: 02/02/2010 10:14:56 PM
Date of Original Publication: 02/02/2010
Country: Spain
Summary: The European Court of Human Rights has notified in writing its Chamber judgment in the case of Aizpurua Ortiz and Others v. Spain . The Court considers that he supreme court’s validation of a new collective agreement altering a supplementary retirement pension scheme not breach of the convention.
The Court held a (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.


Principal facts

The applicants are Magdaleno Aizpurua Ortiz and 55 other Spanish nationals who live or used to live in the province of Vizcaya (Spain). They were employed by the company Sefanitro S.A. (“the company”) until they took early retirement, at which point they received a supplementary pension under the terms of a collective agreement concluded in 1983. Under the agreement, former staff members who had commenced employment with the company before 1984 received a supplementary annual pension up to the age of 65.

When the payments stopped in 1994 the applicants brought actions before the courts, which found in their favour.

The 1983 agreement was repealed by a new collective agreement which entered into force in 2000 and under the terms of which employees who had been in receipt of a supplementary pension were to be paid a one-off sum equivalent to three monthly payments.

The applicants applied to the employment tribunal, which found partly in their favour and ordered the company to pay the pensions claimed. Following an appeal by the company, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ claims, noting in particular that, unless otherwise provided, the rights conferred by an earlier collective agreement could cease to apply if they were revised by a subsequent collective agreement.
For the entire article, please see the attached file:
Caz082F10.doc35 Kb

Back
 Back
 


Home Page | Subjects | Event | Media | Directory | Search | Registration | Links | Log in


Español|Deutsch|Italiano|Français|Romana|Portuguais
Spanish
 
German
 
Italian
 
French
 
Romanian
 
Portuguese
^


File Attachment Icon
Caz082F10.doc