FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 48776/99
by Ljubomir AĆIMOVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 May 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,[Note1]
andMrV. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 5 February 1999 and registered on 14 June 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Croatian citizen, born in 1927 and living in Zagreb (Croatia).
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant served in the Yugoslav People’s Army and in 1971 retired from service. His military pension was assessed according to his rank and years of service and was paid from the Federal Pension Fund. The payments terminated in November 1991, following the dissolution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The applicant alleges that the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia agreed on 8 October 1991 in Mohacz (Hungary) that the pensions of the former Yugoslav people’s Army officers who decided to stay in Croatia would be paid by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until 31 December 1991, and from then on by the Republic of Croatia, in full amount.
However, on 12 December 1992, the Croatian Social Security Fund, Zagreb Office, assessed the applicant’s pension, as from 1 October 1992, to 63,22 % of the amount he had received until December 1991.
On 9 May 1995 the applicant lodged a claim with the administrative body, requesting full payment of his pension. His request was rejected and the applicant appealed that decision, and after his appeal was dismissed, on 9 January 1997 he instituted administrative proceedings. As the Administrative Court had not decided on his claim, on 13 November 1997 he lodged another claim. The Administrative Court has not yet decided any of those claims.
During 1991, 1992 and on 18 October 1993 the Croatian Parliament passed several laws on the regulation of pensions of the former Yugoslav People’s Army officers that, among other provisions, reiterated that the amount of the former Yugoslav Army officers’ pension shall be 63,22 % of what they had received in December 1991.
The applicant lodged his constitutional claim challenging the constitutionality of the 1993 Law. On 20 January 1999 the Constitutional Court terminated the proceedings due to the enactment of new legislation that regulates pension rights of all Croatian citizens, including the former Yugoslav Army officers.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the decision to decrease the amount of his pension violated his rights under Articles 1 and 9 of the Convention.
He further claims that the decrease of his pension violated his right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
He also complains that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his claim on the merits, without specifying any provision of the Convention.
THE LAW
1.The applicant alleges that decrease of his military pension violated his rights under Articles 1 and 9 of the Convention.
The Court notes that those complaints are unsubstantiated, and therefore, manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
2.The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect to the administrative bodies’ decisions to decrease his pension. The Court notes that the proceedings are still pending before the Administrative Court.
Therefore, this part of the application is premature as the proceedings are still pending before the Administrative Court. It follows that in regard to this part of the application the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and it must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
3.The applicant further alleges that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his claim on the merits, without specifying any provision of the Convention. However, the Court considers that this complaint raises an issue of the right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the applicant’s right of access to a court and that it is, therefore, necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b)[Note2] of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint that he was deprived of the right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.)
[Note2]Change as necessary.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy