Contradictorily, the Social Insurance Department was operating in violation of the principles of good faith and good administration in the case of a disability pension recipient, as the Supreme Constitutional Court ruled in its decision on Wednesday.
In particular, the Supreme Constitutional Court, in the context of its appellate jurisdiction, accepted an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Court of a disability pension recipient, which had been discontinued after its review by a medical board in 2016.
The appellant, a builder by profession, was receiving a disability pension from 20 January 2010 at a rate of 75% after examination by a Medical Board. In 2012 the Medical Board re-examined him and following their decision that he was fit for work, the Director of Insurance Societies terminated his pension.
After an appeal filed by the Secondary Medical Board, he was examined and issued a finding on February 14, 2013, judging that he was incompetent to practice in whole or in part his profession as a builder. The Minister of Labor and Social Insurance adopted the above opinion and approved granting the appellant a disability pension, at a rate of 75%.
On September 18, 2014 and July 9, 2015, the appellant was re-examined by a Medical Board, which found him fit to practice the profession of builder. The Director adopted the above opinion and terminated the appellant's disability pension effective August 1, 2015. The latter filed a hierarchical appeal against the above decision on September 2, 2015.
He was subsequently examined, specifically on February 18, 2016, by a Secondary Medical Board, which determined that he was fit for work.
The Supreme Constitutional Court states in its decision that "in all the reports, the medical findings of the Medical Councils, in relation to the condition of the appellant, were approximately the same".
In the documents placed before him, he adds, "there is no evidence to demonstrate a change in the appellant's condition, specifically that there has been an improvement in his health, which could possibly justify the revision of the Administration's decision".
The Supreme Constitutional Court concludes that "it has not been demonstrated, based on the evidence brought before it, including the administrative file, that there was a change in the actual circumstances on which the previous decision to grant disability pension was based, so as to justify the revision by the administration of pension provision to the appellant".
As stated, no justification is given for the change in the attitude of the administration to the detriment of the governed.
On the contrary, it is pointed out, "what is found is a contradictory attitude of the administration to sometimes judge the appellant fit and sometimes unfit for work, in violation of the principles of good faith and good administration".
It is noted that "the contradictory behavior of the administration, venire contra factum proprium, offends the justified trust of the citizen towards it and can support the illegality of the administrative act".
For all the above reasons, the Supreme Constitutional Court decided that its intervention was justified and accepted the appeal.
Source: KYPE