38382/19;38384/19

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF RUSU AND HEDEȘ v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 38382/19 and 38384/19) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 16 June 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rusu v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Faris Vehabović, President, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Sebastian Răduleţu, judges, and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 1 of ProtocolNo.1 to the Convention to the Romanian Government (“theGovernment”), represented by their Agent, Ms O.F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and to declare inadmissible, as a partial decision, the remainder of the applications indicated in the appended table; the parties’ observations; the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of applicationno. 38384/19 by a Committee; Having deliberated in private on 26 May 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.The applications concern the review of the applicants’ old-age pension rights several years after they had been initially assessed by the competent national authorities on grounds of a misinterpretation of the relevant domestic legal framework and the consequent demand for retroactive payment of money mistakenly paid to the applicants as pension rights during this period. application no. 38382/19 (RUSU) 2.By a decision of 19 December 2012, the Cluj Pension Authority established, based on Law no. 263/2010 and several other preceding laws containing the same provisions regarding qualifying working time for the calculation of farmers’ pensions, that the applicant had attained retirement age, and he started receiving a monthly pension of 1,150 Romanian Lei(RON – approximately 260 euros (EUR)). 3.On 19 May 2017 the Cluj Pension Authority gave a new revised decision under Law no. 263/2010 correcting the applicant’s pension rights due to an error in the initial assessment caused by the misapplication of the substantive legal provisions concerning the establishment of those rights (see paragraph2). In particular, a period during which the applicant had worked on a collective farm (Cooperativa Agricolă de Producție – CAP) should have been excluded from the assessment because he had not been an ordinary member of the farm, but an accountant. As a result, his monthly pension was reduced by approximately 30% and he had to repay the State the money mistakenly paid to him over the previous three years, from 1June 2014 to 31May 2017, in the amount of RON 12,749 (approximately EUR3,000). 4.The applicant challenged the decision to review his pension rights before the national courts and was successful before the court of first instance. 5.However, by a final decision of 14 December 2018, the Cluj Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) allowed an appeal lodged by the pension authority and ruled in its favour. In doing so, the Court of Appeal did not find any fault on the part of the applicant in relation to the mistake produced at the time of the assessment of his pension rights by the pension authority. APPLIcATION No. 38384/19 (Hedeș) 6.By a decision of 1 March 2006, the Cluj Pension Authority established, based on the law in force at that time, namely Law no. 19/2000, and the preceding ones that the applicant had attained retirement age, and she started receiving a monthly pension of RON 1,458 (approximately EUR 320). 7.On 19 May 2017 the Cluj Pension Authority gave a new revised decision under Law no. 263/2010 correcting the applicant’s pension rights due to an error in the initial assessment caused by the misapplication of the substantive legal provisions then applicable concerning the establishment of those rights (see paragraph6 above). Specifically, a period during which the applicant had worked on a collective farm (CAP) should have been excluded from the assessment because she had not been an ordinary member of the farm, but a chief accountant. As a result, her monthly pension was reduced by RON410 (equivalent to approximately EUR 90) and she was mandated to reimburse the State the amount of RON8,939 (equivalent to approximately EUR2,000) that she had mistakenly received over the past three years, from 1June 2014 to 31 May 2017. 8.The applicant challenged that decision before the national courts and was successful before the court of first instance. 9.By a final decision of 23 November 2018, the Cluj Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the first-instance court and ruled in favour of the pension authority. In doing so, the Court of Appeal did not find any fault on the part of the applicant in relation to the mistake produced at the time of the assessment of her pension rights by the pension authority. 10.By a preliminary ruling of 24February 2025, having noted a lack of clarity and precision in the relevant domestic legislation, the High Court of Cassation and Justice held that the amount of work performed by a person during the period in which they had an individual employment contract with an agricultural collective farm (CAP) could not be counted as qualifying time for the purposes of determining pension rights. 11.Both applicants (applications nos. 38382/19 and 38384/19) complained that the reassessment of their individual pension rights several years later and the demand for the retroactive payments of large sums of money received as pension over three years breached their rights under Article1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 12.Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of protocol nO. 1 to THE CONVENTION 13.The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of an infringement of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of (a) the pension authority’s taking new decisions, after several years, that they had not been entitled to receive pensions in the amounts initially assessed by the competent national authority and (b) the decisions ordering them to repay very large amounts of money received in allegedly undue pension. Such interference had gravely affected the applicants as old persons with very low income and fragile health, thus putting their well‑being in danger. 14.In the case at hand, the applicants’ rights to receive a pension were authorised by favourable evaluations of their pension applications, which the applicants lodged in good faith, by the pension authority and by the national authority’s recognition of their rights. In particular, on the basis of the information available to the Cluj Pension Authority, by decisions given on 19December 2012 and on 1March 2006 respectively, the rights to receive old-age pensions were recognised in favour of the applicants and pensions in the amounts of RON1,158 and RON 1,458 respectively were paid to them until 31May2017 (see paragraphs 2-3 and 6-7 above). The applicants had, therefore, a legitimate expectation of being able to rely on the payments received as rightful entitlements in the amounts initially established by the decisions of the competent national authorities, which were paid monthly to them for several years. Before being reviewed, the pension decisions had undoubtedly produced effects for the applicants. 15.These elements generated for the applicants a property right protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Čakarević v.Croatia, no.48921/13, §§ 54-65, 26 April 2018). 16.The Government’s objection concerning the inadmissibility rationemateriae of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to theConvention must therefore be rejected. 17.Furthermore, the Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 18.The general principles concerning the reduction or discontinuation of a social insurance benefit have been summarised in Béláné Nagy v.Hungary ([GC], no. 53080/13, 13 December 2016) and Čakarević v. Croatia (cited above). 19.The Cluj Pensions Authority’s decisions of 19 May 2017 (later confirmed on 23 November 2018 and 14December 2018), which retroactively divested the applicants of a large part of the pension they had been receiving since 2006 and 2012 respectively, together with the demand for the retroactive repayment of significant sums of money amounted to an interference with their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (see Čakarević cited above, § 71). 20.The above-mentioned interference falls thus to be examined under the general rule enunciated in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article1 of Protocol No. 1. The interference was apparently provided for by Lawno.263/2010 on the unified public pension scheme. Thus, Article107 of Law no. 263/2010 allowed the pension authority to give a revised decision, on its own initiative or on the pensioner’s request, to make the necessary adjustments if discrepancies were found between the amounts initially established as pension and those legally due. The interference in the present case was not determined by new legislation (contrast Béláné Nagy, cited above, § 120), but by a change in the interpretation and implementation of the substantive legal provisions applicable to the applicants’ particular situation. This divergent approach of the national authorities appears to have stemmed from a lack of clarity and precision in the relevant domestic legislation, allowing them to reach different conclusions. However, the HighCourt of Cassation and Justice’s decision of 24February 2025 (see paragraph10 above) confirmed that the new interpretation and application of the existing legal framework, following which the applicants’ pension rights were reduced (see paragraphs 3 and 7 above), was the correct one. Therefore, it can be argued that the interference was lawful. 21.The measure pursued a legitimate aim, namely the good administration of public funds and the need to correct an error committed by the public authority. The State’s decisions were aimed primarily at achieving concordance between the factual situation of beneficiaries and their compliance with the statutory requirements for this type of pension. It should be examined further whether those decisions imposed a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicants. 22.The Court reminds that public authorities should not be prevented from correcting their mistakes, even those resulting from their own negligence. Where an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions was caused in the context of a rectification of an error committed by the public authority, the principle of good governance imposes on the authorities an obligation to act promptly in correcting their mistake in an appropriate manner and with the utmost consistency (see Moskal v.Poland, no. 10373/05, §§ 51 and 73, 15 September 2009 and Casarin v.Italy, no. 4893/13, §68, 11 February 2021). Such errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned (see Moskal, cited above, §73in fine). 23.In the present case, it has not been alleged that the applicants took any actions with the intention of misleading the pension authority or that they otherwise acted in bad faith when submitting their requests for a pension. Indeed, the pension authority itself established the relevant elements when granting the applicants’ requests for a pension (see paragraphs 5 and 9 in fine above). Moreover, the entry into force of Law no.263/2010 didn’t lead the pension authority to review the applicants’ pension rights for another five and seven years, respectively (see paragraphs 3 and 7 above). 24.The review of the decisions concerning the pension rights of the applicants was not based on any new evidence but only on a reassessment of the same evidence which was at the basis of the final administrative decisions, that reassessment being conducted proprio motu and with retroactive effect by the pension authority. Therefore, the reassessment of evidence in issue brings into question legal certainty in the area of social security. Crucially, uncertainty is a factor to be considered in assessing the State’s conduct, the public authorities being bound to act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner (see Čakarević, cited above, § 84). 25.The case at hand concerns the significant loss of pension entitlements, which were already very low (see paragraphs 2 and 6 above) and which constituted an essential source of income of the applicants for a period of more than four and eleven years, respectively (see, mutatis mutandis, Romeva v.North Macedonia, no. 32141/10, §§ 74-75, 12December 2019). In this context, the reimbursement of the pension benefits paid to the applicants for the past three years (see paragraphs 3 and 7 in fine above) further aggravated their financial situation (see, mutatis mutandis, Čakarević, cited above, §§86‑89 and Bulgakova v. Russia, no.69524/01, §47, 18January2007). 26.In the circumstances above, the Court finds that the burden placed on the applicants was excessive. There has accordingly been a violation of Article1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 27.The applicant in application no. 38384/19 did not submit in due time a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum on that account. 28.The applicant in application no. 38382/19 claimed 55,561Romanian Lei (RON), equivalent to approximately 11,112 euros (EUR), including RON11,461 (approximately EUR 2,292) which had already been withheld from him as the outstanding amount which he was ordered to pay (see paragraph 3 in fine above) in respect of pecuniary damage; RON100,000 (approximately EUR 20,000) in respect of non-pecuniary damage; and RON3,000 (approximately EUR 600) in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and RON15,000 (approximately EUR3,000) for those incurred before the Court. 29.The Government contested the claims. 30.Given the nature of the violation found, the Court requests the Government to ensure that any payment order issued against the applicant for reimbursement of the sums already paid in respect of pension rights is not enforced any further (see Romeva, cited above, §88); also, the applicant must be reimbursed the amounts already paid by him on account of the demand for reimbursement (see paragraph 3 above). Furthermore, making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, theCourt awards the applicant EUR 2,200 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 31.On the basis of the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 3,000 covering costs and expenses for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him, and dismisses the remainder of the claims. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to theConvention; Holds that the respondent State is to return to the applicant in application no.38382/19, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 §2 of theConvention, the amounts already paid by him on account of the demand for reimbursement of the sums paid as pension benefits between 1June2014 and 31 May 2017; that the respondent State is to pay the applicant in application no.38382/19, within three months, the following amounts,to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) EUR 2,200 (two thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 June 2026, pursuant to Rule77§§2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Valentin NicolescuFaris Vehabović Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Nationality Represented by 1. 38382/19 Rusu v. Romania 04/07/2019 Nechita RUSU Romanian Eugenia Corina POPA 2. 38384/19 Hedeș v. Romania 04/07/2019 Victoria HEDEȘ Romanian Eugenia Corina POPA