Article 25 - The rights of the elderly
Key facts of the case:
The complainant is a specialist in orthopaedics and orthopaedic surgery who has been receiving a retirement pension from the Social Insurance Institution for the Self-Employed since November 2014. In addition, he continues to run an elective doctor's office and is self-employed as an expert. In his complaint, he challenged the imposition of pension and accident insurance contributions under the Federal Act on the Social Insurance of Self-employed Persons1. He argued that the legal provision according to which he had to continue to pay pension contributions despite having reached the standard retirement age and having received a retirement pension was unconstitutional. The complainant further argues that the legal provision of the Federal Act on the Social Insurance of Self-employed Persons makes it considerably more difficult for him to continue to participate in professional life and therefore constitutes a violation of Article 25 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The court dealt with the question of whether the imposition of pension and accident insurance contributions to a retired person who is still self-employed under the Federal Act on the Social Insurance of Self-employed Persons was unconstitutional and violated Article 25 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Outcome of the case:
Without going into detail as to whether the Charter should be applied to the present case at all, the Administrative Court concludes that even if Article 25 of the Charter was applicable, the complainant’s arguments would not be accepted: According to Article 25 of the Charter, the elderly have a right to a dignified and independent life and to participate in social and cultural life, meaning that the elderly people continue to have a right to equal participation in community life in the sense of protection against age discrimination, which may also include the pursuit of a gainful employment. In the present case, however, it is not clear to what extent the complainant’s continued participation in professional life would be impeded as a result of his age. The mere fact that he continues to be burdened with pension contributions as he is engaged in gainful employment that is subject to insurance, does not constitute a discrimination on grounds of age compared to younger people who also must pay contributions in the amount provided for by law. Nor would it be more difficult for him to continue to engage in gainful employment as a result of it.
The Court found that the legal provision of the Federal Act on the Social Insurance of Self-employed Persons imposing pension and accident insurance contributions upon the complainant are in compliance with constitutional law.
The complainant also argues that there has been a violation of Article 25 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, especially since his continued participation in professional life is made "considerably more difficult" by Article 2(2)(1) of the Federal Act on the Social Insurance of Self-employed Persons. The Charter applies as the case is governed by European Union law, and the relevant national provisions fall within the scope of Directive 2000/78/EC.
In the present case, it can be left open the question whether the case was governed by Union law and thus the Charter was applicable [...], as even if Article 25 of the Charter was applicable, this would not be in favour of the complainant.
According to Article 25 of the Charter, elderly persons have the right to a dignified and independent life and to participate in social and cultural life. The latter is (in particular) to be understood as meaning that elderly persons, in the sense of protection against age discrimination, continue to have a right to equal participation in community life, which may also include the pursuit of gainful employment [...].
In the present case, however, it is not specifically stated, nor can it be seen, to what extent the complainant's continued participation in professional life would be impeded as a result of his age. The mere fact that, despite receiving an old-age pension, he continues to be burdened with pension contributions as he is engaged in gainful employment subject to compulsory insurance does not mean - even if the future accrual of benefits is uncertain - that he would be discriminated against on grounds of age compared to younger people who also must pay contributions in the amount provided for by law, or that it would be more difficult for him to continue to engage in gainful employment.
Der Revisionswerber macht ferner geltend, es liege - zumal ihm durch § 2 Abs. 2 Z 1 Freiberuflichen-Sozialversicherungsgesetz die weitere Teilnahme am Berufsleben „erheblich erschwert“ werde - ein Verstoß gegen Art. 25 GRC vor. Die Charta komme zur Anwendung, weil ein unionsrechtlich geregelter Fall vorliege, da die betreffenden nationalen Bestimmungen in den Anwendungsbereich der Richtlinie 2000/78/EG fielen.
Vorliegend kann dahingestellt bleiben, ob von einer unionsrechtlich geregelten Fallgestaltung und damit von der Geltung der Charta auszugehen ist (deren Ableitung im Wege der Richtlinie 2000/78/EG käme jedenfalls nicht in Betracht; vgl. dazu schon Pkt. 6.2.), wäre doch selbst bei Anwendung des Art. 25 GRC für den Standpunkt des Revisionswerber nichts gewonnen.
Nach Art. 25 GRC haben ältere Menschen ein Recht auf ein würdiges und unabhängiges Leben sowie auf Teilnahme am sozialen und kulturellen Leben. Unter Letzterem ist (insbesondere) zu verstehen, dass älteren Menschen im Sinn eines Schutzes vor Altersdiskriminierung weiterhin ein Recht auf gleiche Teilnahme am gemeinschaftlichen Leben zukommt, das auch die Ausübung einer Erwerbstätigkeit inkludieren kann […].
Vorliegend wird freilich nicht konkret ausgeführt und ist auch nicht zu sehen, inwiefern dem Revisionswerber infolge seines Alters die weitere Teilnahme am Berufsleben erschwert würde. Allein der Umstand, dass er trotz Bezug einer Alterspension aufgrund der Ausübung einer versicherungspflichtigen Erwerbstätigkeit weiterhin mit Pensionsbeiträgen belastet ist, führt - selbst bei ungewissem künftigen Leistungsanfall - nicht dazu, dass er altersbedingt gegenüber jüngeren Menschen, die ebenso Beiträge in der gesetzlich vorgesehenen Höhe zahlen müssen, diskriminiert wäre bzw. ihm die weitere Ausübung einer Erwerbstätigkeit erschwert würde.
