European Court of Human Rights delivers decision in cases concerning additional tax on pension income

On 6 March 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a decision on cases concerning additional tax on pension income. The ECtHR unanimously held that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination) to the Convention. The ECtHR declared the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention inadmissible.

In their applications to the ECtHR, the applicants invoked Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination) to the Convention, complaining that the Income Tax Act discriminates against retired taxpayers without any justification on the ground of age. As pensioners, they have to pay an additional tax of 6% for their annual pension exceeding EUR 45,000 while employed taxpayers only pay 2% for annual income exceeding EUR 100,000. Pensioners thus pay more tax for the same income than employed taxpayers. Moreover, the additional tax for retired taxpayers is permanent, whereas the one for employed taxpayers is temporary.

The applicants further complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that the existing domestic remedies had proved to be inefficient in the case.

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the ECtHR decided to examine them jointly and deliver a single judgment.  

As regards Article 14 of the Convention, the ECtHR held that, considering all aspects of the applicants’ cases, the applicants had not demonstrated that, as liable to pay tax on pensions, they were in a sufficiently comparable situation to taxpayers who are liable to pay tax on employment income. Accordingly, the ECtHR found no evidence of discrimination. On these grounds, the complaints were manifestly ill-founded and had to be declared inadmissible.

Having determined that the applicants’ complaints under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 were manifestly ill-founded, the ECtHR concluded that there was no basis for the applicants’ claims. Accordingly, Article 13 of the Convention was not applicable to either applicant’s case.

Read the decision in the HUDOC database(Link to another website.) (Opens New Window).(Link to another website.) (Opens New Window)