UK service pensioners challenge legal provision

Two hundred and fifty-nine British service pensioners yesterday filed a constitutional case asking the court to declare that the law allowing the reduction of their Maltese pension was in breach of their fundamental human rights.

The pensioners, represented by Dr Edward Zammit Lewis, filed the case against the Ministry for the Family and Social Solidarity and the Director of Social Security.

During a press conference held outside the law courts minutes before the writ was filed, Dr Zammit Lewis explained that, after a judicial protest was filed earlier this year, the government did not appear to have the will to resolve this anomaly.

He claimed that his clients were ready to fight this "legal battle" and, if need be, take their case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

In the writ the pensioners explained that they had all worked in the British military service and when the military left Malta in 1979 they were given a retirement pension or the option to continue their service overseas.

Those who chose to continue were to receive a pension that depended on their grade and the time they spent serving. This pension was, and still is, provided by the British government.

They had paid national insurance to the Maltese government and consequently were entitled to a full pension on reaching retirement age. This also applied to those who chose to take up the offer and continue serving in England where they regularly paid national insurance to the British government as agreed with the Maltese government. But once they reached the retirement age of 61 and became eligible for a Maltese pension, their service pension was deducted from their Maltese pension.

This was done according to article 56 of the Social Security Act which deals with the reduction of the two-thirds pension due to service pension.

The European Courts of Human Rights stated that when a government distinguishes between two categories of people, the distinction must be reasonable and legitimate. In this case there was a distinction between those who received their pension from, or on behalf of, the United Kingdom and those who were not in the service. This was not a legitimate distinction since the former were deprived from that to which they were entitled and from what they had paid for throughout their working lives.

They were being deprived of their full pension because they were receiving one from England, for which they worked hard and made many sacrifices.

For these reasons they claimed that the law, as it stands, is discriminatory against them and in breach of their fundamental rights as stated in article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights, of which Malta is a signatory.

The article reads: "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status".

The pensioners concluded the writ by calling on the court to declare that article 56 of the Social Security Act (which makes reference to articles 53 to 55 and the Twelfth Schedule) is in breach of fundamental human rights as laid down in the European Convention and article 1 of the Convention's First Protocol.