Widow a pension discriminates against? She was appealed to the European Court of Human Rights
2025-05-12 08:56
publication
2025-05-12 08:56
ZUS reports that approx. 761 thousand were received applications for a widow of a pension, including 89 percent The signatories of them are women. However, according to some seniors of the norm, to apply for a benefit, they are too high – hence the complaint of the retirement -SOLO initiative to the Polish State to the European Court of Human Rights.
Until now, a senior or senior who lost their loved ones had to choose either between 100 % with his pension, or 85 % benefits of the deceased. Now they can decide if they want to download:
- 100 percent your pension plus 15 percent pensions after the deceased spouse;
- 100 percent pensions after the deceased spouse plus 15 percent your benefit.
The rules that allow such a possibility are clear: the right to a pension/disability pensions, women must be 55 years old, and men – 60 and marriage must run a joint household until the day of death. This excludes couples living in informal relationships, even for many years.
The retirement initiative-Solo considers the last record to be discriminatory. The members were to be alerted before the government, parliamentarians, the Ombudsman and ministers. As they say, they sent over 2,000 letters and reflected from the wall, hence the complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. It's hard to disagree with their arguments:
“If a man left you, the Polish state recognizes that you do not deserve any help in old age. Even if you raised children all your life, you worked and paid disability contributions […] Lonely seniors who have never had husbands were abandoned, left because of violence or a failed relationship will lose an average of 250 thousand. PLN from your disability contributions […] In this way, the patriarchy makes mothers for loneliness. “
The first payments from the “new” widow are to start on July 1. The Ministry of the Family had already announced that it was only in 2028 that it would “revise” the rules, if necessary.
ed. aw
