Order to repay mistakenly paid unemployment benefits was excessive burden, violating Convention
JUDGMENT
Čakarević v. Croatia 26.04.2018 (no. 48921/13)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that she had been ordered to repay unemployment benefits after the employment office made a mistake in authorising the payments. The Court observed that Ms Čakarević, who was unemployed and suffered from ill health, had done nothing to mislead the employment office about her circumstances.
The authorities themselves had made the mistake of paying her benefits for about three years longer than the law allowed. However, it had been Ms Čakarević who had alone been ordered to right the situation, including having to pay statutory interest.
Given her ill health and lack of income, the domestic authorities had therefore violated her rights by placing an excessive individual burden on her.
PROVISION
Article 1 of the First Protocol
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Ilinka Čakarević, is a Croatian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Rijeka (Croatia).
Ms Cakarevic lost her job in December 1995. She was awarded unemployment benefits in November 1996, which were renewed until further notice in December 1997. In March 2001 the Rijeka Employment Bureau terminated her entitlement to the benefits, with effect from June 1998. It said she had received them for longer than the legal period and she was ordered to repay 19,451 Croatian kunas (about 2,600 euros).
In poor health, unemployed and with no income, she refused an offer to repay the money in 60 instalments and the employment office began civil proceedings. It accused her of unjust enrichment and sought repayment plus statutory interest.
The courts upheld the claim, with the Constitutional Court dismissing the applicant’s complaints in March 2013. Enforcement is still ongoing.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The Court first decided that Ms Čakarević had had a legitimate expectation of being able to rely on the unemployment benefit payments as being rightful entitlements, meaning that this provision of the Convention applied to her case. It then examined in particular whether the domestic authorities’ actions had struck a fair balance between the general interest and that of the applicant.
It noted that under its case-law in the context of stopping benefits, authorities were not prevented from correcting their mistakes. However, Ms Čakarević’s case concerned the repayment of benefits received in reliance on an administrative decision. It was therefore more appropriate to apply its case-law that mistakes made by the State should not be rectified at the expense of applicants.
Furthermore, Ms Čakarević had not misled the authorities about her circumstances and that she had never been put on notice of the fact that there was a maximum period under the law for her to receive the benefits, based on her period of employment. The authorities had taken a decision to continue to pay so she had had a legitimate basis to assume that the payments were legally correct.
On the other hand, the Court found that the authorities had failed to act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner. The employment office had made the mistake, but it was Ms Čakarević who had been made solely responsible for righting it, with the State facing no consequences. The courts had also failed to take account of Ms Čakarević’s poor health and poor financial situation, where the benefits were her only income and provided for her subsistence.
The domestic decisions had imposed an excessive individual burden on her, in violation of the Convention. Given these findings, the Court saw no need to consider her complaints under Article 8.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Croatia was to pay the applicant 2,600 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,130 in respect of costs and expenses(echrcaselaw.com editing).
