Today, the Supreme Court ruled in cases A, B and C against the Social Insurance Administration and the Icelandic State for the reduction of old-age pension and home allowance due to payments they received from compulsory employment-related pension funds between 1 March 2017 and 1 April 2020. The parties’ disagreement was on the constitutionality of Acts No. 116/2016 and 9/2017, which amended the provisions of Act No. 100/2007, including on benefits categories and the reduction of old-age pension and home allowance due to payments from compulsory employment-related pension funds. The Supreme Court’s judgments stated, among other things, that Acts No. 116/2016 and 9/2017 had in no way reduced payments to A, B and C from pension funds according to rights they had earned on the basis of contributions. On the reduction of old-age pension and home allowance due to income from pension funds, it was stated that such income had always been deducted to some extent from the rights of A, B and C in the social security system, which was based on assisting those with the lowest income. It was stated that even though their income from pension funds led to a reduction in their old-age pension and home allowance, Acts No. 116/2016 and 9/2017 had in practice increased such payments to them from the Social Insurance Administration. It was not accepted that their legitimate expectations had been established to receive an unreduced old-age pension and home allowance that were protected under Article 72(1) of the Constitution, as explained in light of Article 1(1) of Annex 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. By the introduction of Act No. 116/2016 and 9/2017, the legislator was not considered to have exceeded the scope that he had by virtue of his budgetary authority to organize the arrangements for maintenance assistance under Article 76(1) of the Constitution and to decide on the grounds on which the amount of old-age pension and home allowance rests. Finally, the pleas of A, B and C that Article 65 of the Constitution had been violated because of special rules that applied to private savings and a higher free income limit for income from employment were not accepted. The results of the District Court’s decision to acquit the Social Insurance Administration and the Icelandic State of claims made by A, B and C were therefore confirmed. The full sentences can be read here.