FIRST SECTION
Application no. 65625/11
Stevan ANTOIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 3 October 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Stevan Antoić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1940 and lives in Petrovaradin. He was represented before the Court by Ms B. Šojić Mićunović, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 12 May 1998 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) found that pension instalments of pension beneficiaries in the Republic of Croatia had to be adjusted.
4. On 15 July 2004 the Croatian Parliament (Sabor Republike Hrvatske) enacted the Act on Enforcement of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia of 12 May 1998, published in the Official Gazette, no. 105/2004 and 19/2007 (Zakon o provođenju Odluke Ustavnog suda Republike Hrvatske od 12 svibnja 1998, Narodne novine, broj 105/2004, 19/2007).
5. This Act, inter alia, in section 1 provided that any difference in the amount of the pensions that had to be paid and that were actually paid to the pension beneficiaries, was to be compensated through a special fund. Section 4 of the same Act obliged the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje) to assess the amount of compensation in respect of every single pension beneficiary.
6. On 15 December 2005 the applicant lodged a request with the Zagreb Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje Područna služba u Zagrebu) asking adjustments of the amount of his pension instalments and eventually award of the adequate compensation.
7. The Zagreb Office of the Croatian Pension Fund replied to the applicant on 19 January 2006 by a letter informing him that he did not have the right to adjustment of his pension instalments because he was not receiving pension in the period between 1993 and 1998.
8. On 9 February 2006 the applicant asked the Zagreb Office of the Croatian Pension Fund to re-examine his case and to provide him a reasoned decision if he did not have a right to adjustment. He also submitted evidence that he had been receiving pension in the period at issue.
9. On 3 March 2006 the Zagreb Office of the Croatian Pension Fund declared the applicant’s request inadmissible on the ground that it was not competent to decide about it. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“Under section 1 paragraph 2 of [the Act on Enforcement of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia of 12 May 1998] the compensation to the beneficiaries is to be paid through a special fund. Since the right to the compensation, under the said Act, is not paid through the Croatian Pension Fund but through a [special] pension fund, this body does not appear competent to decide the request ...”
10. On 23 March 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Central Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (Središnji ured Hrvatskog zavoda za mirovinsko osiguranje) arguing that his request was within the competence of the Croatian Pension Fund.
11. On 22 May 2006 the Central Office of the Croatian Pension Fund dismissed the applicant’s appeal reiterating the same arguments which had been adduced in the first instance decision.
12. On 30 June 2006 the applicant brought an administrative action in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske). The applicant relied on section 4 of the Act on Enforcement of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia of 12 May 1998, arguing that it obliged the Croatian Pension Fund to assess the amount of the compensation to be paid to him.
13. On 9 April 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the ground that the Croatian Pension Fund had not been competent for deciding his request.
14. Against the above decision of the Administrative Court the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 18 June 2009.
15. On 16 March 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as ill-founded. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant on 9 April 2011.
B. Relevant domestic law
16. The relevant part of the Act on Enforcement of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia of 12 May 1998, published in the Official Gazette, no. 105/2004 and 19/2007 (Zakon o provođenju Odluke Ustavnog suda Republike Hrvatske od 12 svibnja 1998, Narodne novine, broj 105/2004, 19/2007) provides:
Section 1
“This Act regulates the enforcement of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia no. U-I-283/97 of 12 May 1998 (Official Gazette no. 69/98) in order to compensate the pension beneficiaries in connection with the erroneous adjustment of pensions in the period between 1 September 1993 and 31 December 1998.
Compensation to the pension beneficiaries under this Act is to be paid through a special fund.
The special fund pursuant to paragraph 2 of this section is to be established by a separate Act which will define its activities and the rights and obligations as regards the payment of the compensation.”
Section 3
“In order to compensate the pension beneficiaries, the Croatian Pension Fund shall assess the difference between the amounts of the ... pension instalments ... for the period between 1 September 1993 and 31 December 1998 ... and the Act on Adjustment of Pensions and Other Pecuniary Pension and Invalidity Incomes and Governing Pension and Invalidity Funds (Official Gazette no. 20/97 and 89/97).
... “
Section 4
“The Croatian Pension Fund shall carry out of its own motion in respect of every single pension beneficiary within a year from the date when this Act comes into force assessment of the difference described in section 3 of this Act
... “
COMPLAINTS
17. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he did not have access to court in that the competent domestic authorities refused to examine his case.
18. The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions was violated.
QUESTIONS
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have a possibility to bring his claim relating to his civil rights and obligations before a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy