5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Hîrbovăţ. 6.  The applicant is the president of the non-governmental organisation Dumitriţa, which specialises in providing assistance to people in need. She suffers from epilepsy with organic personality changes and low frequency tonic epileptic fits. She was treated on an in-patient basis in the Clinical Psychiatric Hospital during the period 22 May to 12 June 2006. 7.  On 27 July 2006 the applicant was summoned to appear before an investigator of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (“the CFECC”). When she appeared, she was arrested on suspicion of having misappropriated funds donated by a Swedish charity to her organisation for distribution to persons in need. The applicant was placed in the CFECC detention centre. 8.  The applicant informed the investigator of her illness and told him that she needed to regularly take medication prescribed for her by her psychiatrist. The officer allegedly replied that detainees were not allowed to have any medication in their possession. 9.  According to the applicant, on being taken to her cell she had an epileptic fit and an ambulance was called to give her emergency assistance. She was then placed in an unventilated cell with another woman, who smoked continually. The applicant does not smoke and was thus exposed to passive smoking, which exacerbated her epilepsy problems. 10.  On 29 July 2006 the investigator asked the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the applicant's arrest. On the same date Judge Drosu, the investigating judge of the Buiucani District Court, rejected the request, finding it unsubstantiated. The judge noted that the applicant had pleaded not guilty and that the investigator had not proved there was an absolute need to detain the applicant. There was no evidence that she might abscond, put pressure on witnesses or interfere with the course of the investigation. Moreover, the judge took into account the criteria of Article 176 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which had been invoked by the applicant's lawyer, namely, that the applicant “had a stable residence and a job, was of an advanced age and not in good health, and did not have a criminal record”. 11.  Immediately after the hearing of 29 July 2006, the prosecutor informed the applicant that a provisional measure requiring her not to leave her village for thirty days had been imposed. 12.  In reply to a request by the prosecutor of 28 July 2006, on 31 July 2006 the Clinical Psychiatric Hospital of the Ministry of Health and Social Protection (“the CPH”) confirmed that the applicant had been treated for epilepsy in the hospital during the period 22 May to 12 June 2006. The CPH added that urgent medical assistance could be provided to the applicant by calling an ambulance and that she was eligible to receive free medication on the basis of a prescription issued by her local psychiatrist. 13.  On 1 August 2006 the prosecutor appealed against the decision of the investigating judge. He noted that the criminal case had been initiated on 16 June 2006 and that the evidence obtained so far, including an audit of the non-governmental organisation's activities, attested to a misappropriation of funds (amounting to 950,970 Moldovan lei (MDL) or 55,957 euros (EUR) at the time). As the director of Dumitriţa, the applicant was directly responsible for the manner in which the money and items had been used. Since many of the persons receiving aid from the applicant's organisation were elderly and poor, they could easily be influenced by the applicant, who was accused of a serious crime punishable by ten to twenty-five years' imprisonment. Moreover, the applicant might interfere with the course of the investigation, as was clear from her “not guilty” plea and her claim that the Swedish organisation was simply punishing her for her organisation's refusal to participate in a bigger project. 14.  On 7 August 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal quashed the investigating judge's decision of 29 July 2006 and ordered the applicant's detention for ten days. The court found as follows:
“[I]n examining the request for a preventive measure of detention the [lower] court did not take into account the seriousness of the crime which [the applicant] is suspected of having committed, and adopted a premature and unsubstantiated decision. [The applicant] is suspected of having committed an exceptionally serious crime which is punishable by more than two years' imprisonment, and she may abscond, interfere with the course of the investigation or commit other crimes.” 15.  According to the applicant, she was not summoned to the hearing of 7 August 2006 and did not attend it, although her lawyer did attend. The decision of 7 August 2006 mentioned that the applicant had participated in the hearing. 16.  The applicant was arrested shortly thereafter at her house, on the basis of an arrest warrant of the same date issued by the Chişinău Court of Appeal. The warrant stated as follows:
“[The applicant] is suspected of having committed a crime punishable by more than two years' imprisonment, and of absconding from the law-enforcement authority and the court, and might interfere with the course of the investigation and commit other crimes”.
Also on 7 August 2006, the applicant was formally indicted for the crime. 17.  In the meantime a request by the applicant's lawyer to declare her arrest on 27 July 2006 unlawful was rejected as unfounded by the investigating judge on 3 August 2006. The judge found that although the investigator had only noted one reason as the ground for the applicant's arrest (namely, a direct indication by a witness that she had committed the crime), that ground was expressly provided for by law. 18.  On 11 August 2006 the prosecutor asked for an extension of the applicant's detention pending trial for another thirty days. The request referred to the same facts as those mentioned in the request of 1 August 2006, but mentioned in addition the Court of Appeal's decision of 7 August 2006 and the formal indictment of the same date. The applicant opposed that request, referring to her stable residence and job, as well as her health problems. 19.  On 15 August 2006 the investigating judge of the Buiucani District Court granted the request and extended the applicant's detention pending trial for another thirty days. The court noted that on 7 August 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal had annulled the decision of 29 July 2006 and that on 7 August 2006 the applicant had been indicted for the crime. The court added:
“[T]he grounds relied on by the Chişinău Court of Appeal for ordering [the applicant's] arrest remain valid. In such circumstances the validity of the arrest warrant shall be extended, since the reasons cited by the prosecution for extending it have priority; [the detention] will be part of the normal course of the criminal proceedings; the arguments of the defence were examined by the appellate court”. 20.  On an unknown date after 15 August 2006 the applicant's lawyer made a habeas corpus request to the investigating judge, in which he referred to the decision of 15 August 2006 and asked for his client's release on medical grounds. He informed the judge of his client's medical condition and of the inadequate medical assistance available at the CFECC, which was contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He made a similar complaint to the Chişinău Court of Appeal in an appeal against the decision of 15 August 2006, adding that his client had had several epileptic fits after her arrest and that the CFECC could not provide the full-time specialised medical assistance she required. It appears that there was no response to any of these complaints. 21.  The applicant claims that she was summoned before the investigator on several occasions before her arrest on 27 July 2006. She and her lawyer duly appeared before the investigator each time and at no time did she abscond from the investigation. On 17 August 2006 the applicant's lawyer was informed by the Anenii Noi Post Office that no registered mail had been delivered to the applicant during the period 1 to 17 August 2006. Nor was there any evidence in the file that the applicant had in fact been summoned to appear before the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 7 August 2006. In the absence of an official summons, the applicant could not have appeared before the investigating authorities or the courts since that would have been in breach of the preventive measure imposed on her on 29 July 2006 in respect of the undertaking not to leave her village. 22.  According to the medical documents submitted by the Government, the applicant was treated by a psychiatrist (R.V.) during her detention at the CFECC. R.V. visited her twenty-four times, that is, almost every day and on three occasions twice a day. She received the treatment prescribed by that doctor, as can be seen from his notes in the medical visits register. According to the same register, on 17 August 2006 R.V. noted:
“The administration has been informed about the worsening of the patient's state of health and of the need to transfer her to a medical institution.”
On 1 September 2006 R.V. wrote in the medical visits register that the applicant was to be transferred to the hospital in Costiujeni, her condition having improved.
Later that day the applicant was transferred to the Costiujeni Clinical Psychiatric Hospital for in-patient treatment. Before her release from the CFECC she wrote a note in the medical register (dated 1 August 2006) in which she stated that she had no complaints about her treatment there and thanked the doctor for his assistance. On 20 September 2009 R.V. wrote a “medical report” in which he essentially stated that the applicant had received medical assistance appropriate to her state of health during her detention at the CFECC. 23.  According to the applicant, she had a number of epileptic fits at the time of the events described above, which occurred in the CFECC detention facility and in the prosecutor's office, the court hall and even during a court hearing. Two such fits happened in the prosecutor's office on 29 July 2006 immediately after the hearing, when her lawyer gave her emergency assistance. She also claims that she can occasionally sense the onset of a fit sufficiently far in advance to be able to take the relevant medication and thus prevent the fit from occurring. However, as she was denied access to her medication in the cell, she was not able to prevent any of her fits.


4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Baj, Hungary. 5.  On 2 October 1992 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Police Department informed the applicant, the managing director of a limited liability company (“the company”), that a criminal investigation had been opened against him on charges of fraud. 6.  On 6 October 1992 the Police Department requested the Tax Authority’s Komárom-Esztergom County Department to carry out a tax inspection of the company. Subsequently, on 13 October 1992 the criminal investigation against the applicant was suspended pending the outcome of the tax inspection. 7.  On 4 January 1993 the Tax Authority informed the Police Department of its findings. Consequently, on 8 January 1993 the Police Department ordered that the criminal investigation against the applicant be continued. 8.  During the period until 14 December 1993, the Police Department questioned several witnesses on altogether fifteen occasions and interrogated the applicant on 24 August and 16 December 1993. On the latter date he refused to give testimony. 9.  On 17 December 1993 the Police Department appointed an expert graphologist. 10.  On 23 December 1993 the Police Department informed the applicant’s lawyer and the Tata District Public Prosecutor’s Office of the results of the investigation. On 27 December 1993 the Police Department terminated the investigations and transferred the file to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 11.  On 7 February 1994 the Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment. 12.  The applicant’s request of 26 April 1995 to have the investigation re-opened was rejected by the Tata District Court. 13.  The first trial hearing took place on 12 April 1996. On this occasion the District Court heard several witnesses. The applicant refused to testify and stated that he did not commit the crime with which he was charged. 14.  On 15 April 1996 the District Court enquired of a witness who had failed to appear at the hearing of 12 April due to illness as to the expected date of his recovery. 15.  On the applicant’s motion for bias of 10 June 1996, the presiding judge withdrew from the case. 16.  On 30 October 1996 the President of the District Court appointed another judge. On 16 December 1996 the President of the District Court together with two other judges declared bias. 17.  On 29 April 1997 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court appointed the Tatabánya District Court to deal with the case. 18.  On 27 April 1999 the Tatabánya District Court held a hearing and acquitted the applicant. 19.  On the appeal of the Prosecutor’s Office, on 11 and 25 January and 22 February 2000 the Regional Court held hearings. 20.  On 14 March 2000 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment, which thereby became final.


5.  The circumstances of the case are analogous to those described in Maggio and Others v. Italy (nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, 31 May 2011). 6.  In 1995, by means of the Dini reform, Italy changed its pension system from a retributive one, which applied the remuneration-based (“retributivo”) method of calculation, to a contributory one, where the amount received in pension was dependent on the contributions paid. 7.  The applicants, who had transferred to Italy the contributions they had paid in Switzerland, requested the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“INPS”) to establish their pensions in accordance with the 1962 Italo-Swiss Convention on Social Security (see Relevant Domestic Law and Practice below) on the basis of the contributions paid in Switzerland for work they had performed there over several years (see annexed table for details). As a basis for the calculation of their pensions (in respect of the average remuneration of the last ten years), the INPS employed a theoretical remuneration (“retribuzione teorica”) instead of the real remuneration (“retribuzione effettiva”). The former resulted in a readjustment on the basis of the existing ratio between the contributions applied in Switzerland (8%) and in Italy (32.7%), which meant that the calculation had as its basis a pseudo-salary which according to the applicants amounted to approximately a quarter of the salary actually received by them and therefore led to a reduction in the pension itself. 8.  Consequently, in 2005/6 the applicants instituted judicial proceedings, contending that this was contrary to the spirit of the Italo-Swiss Convention.
Various individuals in the applicants’ position had done the same and had been successful, the domestic courts having determined that persons having worked in Switzerland and who had subsequently transferred their contributions to Italy should benefit from the remuneration-based pension calculations, on the basis of the wages earned in Switzerland, irrespective of the fact that the transferred contributions had been paid at a much lower Swiss rate. 9.  Pending their proceedings, Law no. 296/2006 (see Relevant Domestic Law and Practice below) entered into force on 1 January 2007. 10.  By a judgment of the Varese Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 23 September 2008 (no. 306/2008), these applicants’ claim was rejected in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006. 11.  By a judgment of the Varese Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 7 October 2008 (no. 329/2008), these applicants’ claim was rejected in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006. 12.  By a judgment of the Udine Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 7 October 2008, filed in the relevant registry on 8 October 2008 (no. 311/2008), these applicants’ claim was rejected in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006. 13.  By a judgment of the Varese Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 26 November 2008, filed in the relevant registry on 9 December 2008 (no. 389/2008), these applicants’ claim was rejected in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006. 14.  By a judgment of the Bergamo Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 17 September 2008 (no. 789/2008), these applicants’ claim was rejected in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006. 15.  By a judgment of the Como Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 15 June 2006, filed in the relevant registry on 30 June 2006, Mr Gagliardi’s and Mr De Nile’s claims were rejected as being out of time, their proceedings having been lodged more than three years after the administrative decision regarding their pensions; Mr Rossi’s claim was rejected as the court did not share the ratio of the relevant Court of Cassation case-law at the time, and considered that the relevant legal provisions had been sufficiently clear. 16.  The applicants appealed. 17.  By a judgment of 11 December 2008, filed in the relevant registry on 13 January 2009 (no. 63/2009), the Milan Court of Appeal reformed the first-instance judgment, considering that Mr Gagliardi’s and Mr De Nile’s claims for the dues relating to the three years before they lodged their proceedings could not be considered time-barred. However, it rejected the merits of all three applicants’ claims in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006. 18.  By two judgments of the Brescia Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 22 September 2006, filed in the relevant registry on 2 October 2006 (nos. 672/2006 and 678/2006) these applicants’ claim was upheld on the basis of the relevant Court of Cassation case-law at the time. 19.  The INPS appealed. 20.  By a judgment of 18 December 2008, filed in the relevant registry on 11 March 2009 (no. 527/2008), the Brescia Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance judgments in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006. 21.  By two judgments of the Campobasso Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 12 February 2009 (nos. 89/2009 and 90/2009), these applicants’ claim was rejected in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006. 22.  All the applicants did not appeal further, deeming it to be futile given that the impugned law had been considered legitimate by the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 23 May 2008, no. 172 (see Relevant Domestic Law and Practice below), which other courts were then bound to uphold.


5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Ostrów. 6.  The applicant is married with three children. Prior to her application for an early-retirement pension she had been employed and paid social security contributions to the State. 7.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension. 8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 20 July 2001. The certificate stated that the child J. (born in 1988) suffered from a renal condition and scoliosis and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care. 9.  On 29 August 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 August 2001 in the net amount of 653 Polish zlotys (PLN). 10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. On 21 September 2001 the applicant resigned from her full‑time job in a private company where she had been working since 1985. Afterwards, payment of the pension was resumed. 11.  On 4 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 10 July 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care. 12.  On 26 July 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance. 13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights. 14.  On 7 March 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require her mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care. 15.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment. 16.  On 17 October 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal. 17.  On 17 March 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant. 18.  Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early-retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of her right to an early‑retirement pension. 19.  The applicant submitted that after the revocation of pension on 26 July 2002 for five years she had been unsuccessfully looking for job but had received no unemployment or other benefits from the State during that time.
Between May 2007 and June 2008 the applicant was offered a paid traineeship by the unemployment office in the amount of PLN 700 per month. The applicant was afterwards employed from June 2008 to June 2010. 20.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s husband and two adult children were employed. They stated that in 2009 the applicant earned PLN 16,000. Moreover, the applicant and her husband owned a small farm. 21.  In addition, the Government submitted information as regards the various types of social benefits available in Poland. However, they did not specify which of those benefits, if any, were available in the applicant’s situation. 22.  Under the relevant laws currently in force, it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in 2019. 23.  Some 130 applications arising from a similar fact pattern have been brought to the Court. The majority of the applicants form the Association of Victims of the SSB (Stowarzyszenie Osób Poszkodowanych przez ZUS) (“the Association”), an organisation monitoring the practices of the Social Security Board in Poland, in particular in the Podkarpacki region. 24.  Out of all applications lodged with the Court, about twenty‑four applicants decided not to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal given in their case. 25.  One hundred-and-four applicants lodged cassation appeals against the final judgments given in their cases. The Supreme Court entertained and dismissed on the merits fifteen appeals. In eighty‑one applications the Supreme Court refused to entertain cassation appeals on the ground that they did not raise any important legal issues or require the Supreme Court to give a new interpretation to legal provisions which raised serious doubts or gave rise to ambiguity in the jurisprudence of the domestic courts. In the remaining eight cases cassation appeals were rejected for failure to comply with various procedural requirements.