Man loses case over partial loss of pension

A court yesterday dismissed a constitutional application filed against the Director of Social Security and the Attorney General by Emanuel Debono, who claimed he was being deprived of his right to a full pension.

Mr Debono claimed that he used to work with Lloyds Shipping Registry in Malta.

The company's system was such that its employees used to invest in it so that upon retirement they would receive a return on this investment.

As Mr Debono worked in Malta he used to regularly pay Social Security (National Insurance) contributions.

However, upon retirement Mr Debono discovered that the return on his investment in Lloyds' funds was to be deducted from his national insurance pension.

He had requested a judicial declaration that what he received from Lloyds was not a service pension, but the Court of Appeal had dismissed his writ. As a result, Mr Debono was receiving only the difference between his national insurance pension after deducting his return from Lloyds' funds, and he claimed that the application of the Social Security law to his case was depriving him of his right to a full pension, which was a right to property.

Mr Debono further claimed that the law was discriminating between persons who had invested in banks or in shares or bonds, and persons such as himself who invested in vehicles that were managed and founded by his employer.

He claimed that his fundamental human rights had been violated and he requested the court to grant him a remedy.

Defendants pleaded that the scheme to which Mr Debono had contributed was not a private investment but a fund aimed at providing a service pension to company employees.

As a result, this fund constituted a service pension, and Mr Debono's rights were not infringed.

Quoting extensively from local and foreign case law, Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court, found that no discrimination had resulted in Mr Debono's case.

Each state was entitled to control the use of property in the general interest.

The Social Security Act did not create any form of discrimination but was aimed at establishing principles on the applicable rates of pensions and social security contributions.

The fact that one did not agree with the provisions of this law did not render it in violation of one's human rights.

A person who paid contributions was entitled to receive benefits, but not necessarily of a certain amount.

The court therefore dismissed Mr Debono's application.