4.
In arriving at its conclusion that the applicant was not in an analogous or relevantly similar situation to the suggested comparator, the majority drew on a distinction between civil servants and employees in the private sector made by the Court in judgments such as Valkov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 2033/04 and 8 others, §§ 92 and 98, 25 October 2011); Heinisch v. Germany (no. 28274/08, § 64, ECHR 2011, (extracts)); and Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, § 62, ECHR 2007-II). It is true that the Court held in those cases that the different treatment of private and public-sector employees in the enjoyment of their rights under the Convention was justified under certain circumstances. We do not believe, however, that this acceptable differentiation of the Convention rights of private and public-sector employees can justify the conclusion that the two categories in the present case were not in an analogous or relevantly similar situation. While the judgments of the Court that were cited undoubtedly drew a distinction between the Convention rights of public and private-sector employees, the reliance on such a distinction in the present case reveals confusion as to the relevant circumstances required for the comparison. This approach fails to recognise that in the cases relied on by the majority the distinction between public and private-sector employees was a pre-existing feature which defined the very content of the right at issue. Whether pension rights, the right to free speech or the right of access to court were at stake, the very essence of the rights at issue in those cases emanated from the specific characteristics of the public service, and as a result the very essence of the right was defined differently, precisely because of the inherent differences between public and private-sector employment. This was the case even in Panfile, albeit that the Court did not rely on this in reaching its decision. The applicant's right to an old-age pension in that case stemmed from special legislation on military personnel (see Panfile v. Romania (dec.), no. 13902/11, § 3, 20 March 2012). In the present case, however, the underlying right, the applicant's entitlement to an old-age pension, was in no way affected by the difference between public and private-sector employment. On the contrary, that right was identical for both groups.
5.
The Court has established in its case-law that in order for an issue to arise under Article 14, an applicant must demonstrate that he or she was in a relevantly similar situation to others treated differently, having regard to the particular nature of his or her complaint (see Clift v. the United Kingdom, no. 7205/07, § 66, 13 July 2010). Whether we take this as the applicable standard under Article 14, or the reformulated standard set out in paragraph 121 of the present judgment, namely "elements that characterise their circumstances in the particular context", what should have been compared in the present case was the position of the applicant and the members of the comparator group prior to the impugned measure, namely suspension of the old-age pension on the basis of the distinction between public and private-sector employment.
6.
Taking this approach, we cannot help but notice that the applicant's entitlement to an old-age pension in the instant case sprang from exactly the same State old-age pension scheme as that of the comparator group. Both categories had contributed to the scheme in exactly the same manner. As described in paragraph 21 of the judgment, the Hungarian social-security pension scheme is a compulsory, contributory system. Every employee, no matter whether in the public or the private sector, contributes in the same way to the system, which is funded by means of a certain percentage withdrawn from the employee's monthly income and an employer's contribution of 27% of the amount of the employee's salary.
7.
The fact that the applicant took early retirement, before later becoming entitled to an old-age pension, was likewise of no significance for his entitlement to such a pension. He continued to work after his early retirement, and he continued to contribute to the old-age pension scheme in exactly the same manner as any other employee (see paragraph 27 of the judgment). Similarly, the fact that he had contributed to the scheme prior to his early retirement whilst in State employment was of no significance, as he would have found himself in exactly the same position had he previously been employed in the private sector.
8.
Thus, the starting position of the applicant and of individuals in the comparator group was, prior to the suspension of the applicant's pension payments, exactly the same. This situation has a clear parallel with the facts in the case of Andrejeva v. Latvia ([GC], no. 55707/00, § 91, ECHR 2009), in which the Court found a violation of Article 14. In that case the Court held that the prohibition of discrimination enshrined in Article 14 of the Convention was meaningful only if, in each particular case, the applicant's personal situation in relation to the criteria listed in that provision was taken into account exactly as it stood. To hold that the applicant's employment in the public sector while he was in receipt of an old-age pension was decisive for defining whether he was in an analogous situation to the comparator group also runs counter to other decisions of this Court. If this approach had been taken in Gaygusuz v. Austria (16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV), the conclusion would have had to be that the applicant was not in a relevantly similar situation to other persons entitled to emergency assistance in Austria, because, unlike those other persons, he was not an Austrian national.
9.
In the absence of any structural differences between private and public-sector employees in the national pension system, and taking into account the fact that it applied to both categories alike and that the entitlement of the applicant to an old-age pension was based on the same rules and contributions to the system, we conclude that he was in an analogous situation to individuals in the comparator group.
10.
As the parties agreed that the different treatment of the applicant was based on "other status" within the meaning of Article 14, the next relevant question is whether this different treatment was objectively and reasonably justified. The burden of proof, as the Court has held on many occasions, is on the respondent Government, who have to demonstrate that the difference in treatment was justified (see Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 65, ECHR 2017; Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 85, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 177, ECHR 2007-IV). While in their oral pleadings the Government expanded on the justification for the different treatment, their written submissions focused on the need to make savings in a time of financial deficit. The Government's main argument was that section 83/C(1) of the 1997 Pensions Act had been introduced in order to eliminate the simultaneous receipt of pensions and salaries in the public sector, as part of the measures aimed at reducing public debt and securing the closure of the EU excessive deficit procedure. The Government presented statistics about the overall number of individuals affected by the impugned measure and its financial impact. In their oral pleadings, the Government also suggested that the measure was justified as part of efforts to regulate the labour market and create opportunities for young unemployed persons. However, with respect to this argument the Government did not provide any assessment of the expected effect or statistics on the actual impact of the measure.
11.
It is well-established case-law of this Court that a difference in treatment is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification, in other words, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. It can be accepted in the present case that the impugned measure pursued a legitimate aim, for the same reasons for which it was accepted that it was in accordance with the general interest for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Even if the EU excessive deficit procedure was already closed at the time of the adoption of the measure, as the applicant argued, the measure was still aimed at protecting the public purse. This is a legitimate aim, irrespective of the actual financial situation of the country, and one that falls within the economic sphere, where States have a wide margin of appreciation.
12.
Still, when considering the proportionality of the measure some account may be taken, despite the wide margin of appreciation, of the fact that Hungary was at the material time no longer facing a financial crisis. Moreover, the respondent Government presented no evidence that the national Pension Fund, in particular, had been experiencing any financial difficulties. Looking at the measure from this perspective, the number of persons affected and the extent of deprivation become even more important in the proportionality analysis.
13.
Starting with the number of persons affected, the small number of those affected is in fact striking. At any given time between 2013 and 2016, the years for which official figures were provided by the respondent Government, the overall number of individuals affected was between 776 and 1,376. It was 1,376 at the beginning of the period, going down to 776 in the year 2016. Although the overall number of individuals affected by section 83/C(1) of the 1997 Pensions Act was higher - between 4,545 and 3,945 - 3,169 of them were medical workers who were fully compensated for the loss of their old-age retirement pension (see paragraph 28 of the judgment). Thus, the number of individuals who were affected by the contested measure was indeed very small in proportion to the overall number of individuals entitled to an old-age pension. The overall number of individuals entitled to an old-age pension at the time was slightly more than two million.
14.
At the same time, this small number of individuals, between 776 and 1,376, was forced to bear a clearly disproportionate burden, namely the loss of their entire monthly pension. They lost their entire monthly pension, irrespective of the salary they were receiving. Although no exact numbers were provided by the parties, the Government did not dispute the applicant's claim that the suspension of his pension had entailed the loss of roughly half of his income. And while it is true that the applicant was not left without any means of subsistence and there seemed to be no risk of him falling below the subsistence threshold, there can be little doubt that the impugned measure seriously affected his and his family's way of life.
15.
The respondent Government failed to address and justify the fact that this rather small number of persons had to bear such a heavy burden. Particularly as the clearly modest savings to the public purse achieved through that measure might easily have been achieved by a more equal redistribution of the financial burden. The Court is thus faced with a situation which is remarkably similar to the one in Kjartan Ásmundsson v. Iceland (no. 60669/00, ECHR 2004-IX). Accordingly, like in that case we have come to the conclusion that no reasonable relationship of proportionality existed between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised, that the applicant was made to bear an excessive burden and that there has therefore been a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.