Checking for multiple pensions – “The Government does not want to solve the problem” – What it says in a statement
The Control Service issued a statement firing on the issue of multiple pensions.
Placed for the opinion of the Legal Service, he disagrees on essential parts warning that if the bills are passed as they are they will be successfully challenged in the Court. /strong>” he underlines.
At the same time he calls on the Parliament “by exercising its sovereign power, to take the initiative of the movements and with proposals of law to finally remove the distortions that are rightly considered a challenge by civil society ».
Details:
“Today's publications present an opinion of the Legal Service that was sent to the political parties, in view of their meeting with the Government today.
The opinion comments on the two bills that were sent by the Minister of Finance to the Parliament on 21.3.2024 as legally checked, as well as the six (6) texts that our Service forwarded to the Parliament on 24.11.2023 with the recommendation that they be examined by the body in order to solve the problem. Regarding the publications, we note the following:
1. Regarding whether we will attend today's meeting, the answer is that we will not attend since we have not been invited. It is interesting that today the Government and the Legal Service will explain to the political parties why they reject our recommendations, in our absence and without the slightest consultation having ever taken place with us.
2. One of two government billsprovides that the date of starting payment of the pension of former and current officials is shifted from the 60th to the 65th year of age. We have expressed the opinion that such a provision is unconstitutional for the former officials, but also for the current officials for the part of their pension that they have established until today (by “today” we mean the day when the new legislation). Now, the Legal Service admits the unconstitutionality of the regulation it proposed, which concerns former officials. In other words, there is an admission by the Legal Service that the bill that was sent to the Parliament with the marking that it was drawn up under its own guidance is unconstitutional, as our service said from the beginning.
3. Despite the above admission of the Legal Serviceand its recognition that there can be no interference with the pension which has already been established, the Legal Service insists in relation to the incumbents.
It is still our view that , for example, a sitting Member of Parliament who has already served 13 years and is currently 57 years old, when he leaves office in two years, he will be entitled to a full pension once he turns 60since he has already secured his full pension (the full pension of an MP is after ten years of service). Likewise, a Member of Parliament who has served eight (8) years to date, his pension for 8/10 of his service is established and should be paid to him at the age of 60.
4 . Our Service did not invent the above, nor are they its own interpretations. The above was explained by the Supreme Court in the August case, stating that “the expectation of obtaining a claim for a pension, born at the time of employment, constitutes, potentially, property and< strong>crystallizes as an ownership right upon completion of pensionable service in a pensionable position“.
5. The position of the Legal Service for incumbent officials, always according to the reports, also conflicts with the setting that had been made in 2012 for the then active civil servants, when the cut-off date was 31.12.2012, i.e. there was respecting the pension that they had founded up to the date of station and regulation (in the amount of the pension and the date of start of payment) only of the pension that they founded after that date. This law of 2012 was judged to be constitutional and in fact this was recently ratified (19.3.2024) by the Supreme Constitutional Court.
6. Particularly interesting is the fact that the Legal Serviceconsiders constitutional a regulation that would interfere with the established pension of a sitting member of parliament with 13 years of service, but considers unconstitutional our own proposal that protects this established pension. This, along with references to the opinion that supposedly our Service has as an argument the knowledge of the official in the future, before assuming the new position, about the conditions that will apply (an argument we never said since this has been conclusively ruled in the Koutselinis case as unconstitutional) , they simply prove that the Legal Service has not realized what our Service is suggesting.
We repeat: Our Service did something simple. It copied the judicially “iron-headed” regulation made in 2012 for public employees, she introduced it into the texts of law proposals for the current and future officials, sent these texts to the Services of the Parliament experienced in legal technical controls, and adopted to the last iota every suggestion they made to her.
7. The Government is insisting on a bill concerning serving officials which will risk being struck down at the first court hearingand in a bill for future officials that abolishes multiple pensions and introduces multiple lump sums.
Also, the Government still does not touch the issue of the multiple pensions for the existing officials, while he could regulate the matter as far as it concerns the pension they will establish from here on.
< p>The Government also does not touch on the issue of the suspension of civil servant pension payments to a retired civil servant who assumes another position. Basically the law does not deal with public servants at all.
This means that a public servant who retires and becomes a minister , during the time he will be a minister, will receive a civil servant pension and the minister's salary.
Based on our proposal, strong>pension of civil servants that will accumulate after the passing of the law, will be suspended if the retired civil servant assumes any other office.
8. We consider it obvious that the Government does not wish to solve the problem. It is therefore our opinion that the House of Representatives should, exercising its sovereign power, take the initiative of the movements and by proposals of law finally remove the distortions which are rightly considered a challenge by civil society”.
