ANNUAL SPECIAL REPORT 2017 23 again before the State legal Counsel the issue of whether prisoners are eligible for the severe disability financial aid program”. b. - Payment of pensions to prisoners Payments of a prisoner’s pension during his incarceration were declared as disproportionate with an interest of 5%, after payment of the pension was retrospectively suspended for the duration of the detention. Social Security Service (IKA-ETAM) held that the payment of pensions is suspended for the duration of a detention sentence of more than 6 months, under Law 1846/1951. In addition, circular 128/1973 introduces a non-rebuttable presumption that the pensioner was aware of the fact that the payment was undue during the sentence. The Ombudsman invoked case law according to which the above provision is contrary to articles 25(1) and 22(5) of the Greek Constitution (Judgments no 3180/2007 Athens Administrative Court and 2527/2008 Athens Administrative Court of Appeal), given that “pensioners’ criminal offences are not directly linked to their pensioner status, nor are they reason for the loss of the status thereof”. The Ombudsman argued that payments of pensions may not be retrospectively declared as undue, if the social security service has not suspended payment by its own accord. Moreover, the non-rebuttable presumption of being aware of undue payments is discriminatory against prisoners on pension. The Ministry of Labour advised that the issue will be uniformly addressed in the context of the new Social Security Regulation of EFKA, taking into account the Ombudsman’s observations. In addition, article 27 of Law 4488/2017 provides for the suspension of pension payment to pensioners serving a sentence of more than a year, if the offense they were charged with was committed against the social security service A similar complaint was lodged by another pensioner who was paroled for home detention. His request for reinstatement of his pension was refused, on the ground that “parole following a public prosecutor’s order merely alters the place or manner of serving the sentence imposed … and therefore constitutes no reason to terminate the suspension of pension payment”. Given the unfavourable nature of Law 1846/1951, the Ombudsman argued that, until the suspension of pension payment is uniformly addressed by EFKA, care should be taken to limit the repercussions of its implementation. The terms “service of sentence” and “conviction” should be narrowly interpreted as meaning exclusively detention inside a detention facility and no other forms of service should be included, such as release on parole, which lacks the element of deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, the justification of payment suspension, being that the State covers the pensioner’s living cost for the duration of detention, does not apply in the case of parole; therefore the suspension serves no legal purpose.