32. In Stefanetti & Others V. Italy (April 2014) Judgment Strasbourg (Applications
nos. 21838/10, 21894/10, 21852/10, 21855/10, 21860/10, 21863/10, 21869/10,
and 21870/10); the European Court of Human Rights held that:
“The Applicants considered that they had a possession provided for by
domestic law that fell within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Their
right to a pension had been based on the salaries they had earned;
however, because of Law no. 296/06 which totally reshaped the scheme to
their detriment that right had been denied. For a claim to be capable of
being considered an “asset” falling within the scope of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1, the claimant must establish that it has a sufficient basis in national
law, for example where there is settled case-law of the domestic courts
confirming it. Where that has been done, the concept of “legitimate
expectation” can come into play.”
See also judgment in Čakarević v. Croatia (Application no. 48921/13) Strasbourg 26
April 2018
33. In the instant case, the Applicants have sufficient basis in national law to
maintain their claim as Sections 173, (1), (2), (3) & Section 210 of 1999 Constitution
of the Respondent provides for the right of a person in public service of the
Federation to receive pension or gratuity subject to the provision of the law.
The Applicants further relied on the authority of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to
argue that the 5 years pension buyout paid by the Defendant is unconstitutional,
and offends international laws of human rights.
34. In Andrejeva v. Lativa, Application no. 55707/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG, 18th
February 2009, the ECHR held that:
“Where a contracting state has in force a legislation providing for the
payment of rights as welfare benefits, that legislation must be regarded as
generating a pecuniary interest falling within the protocol 1 of Article 1 of
the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Also in Edoh Kokou v. ECOWAS Commission, ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/10, the Plaintiff’s
employment with the Defendant was unlawfully and unexpectedly terminated
without prior notice. The Court held that:
15