FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 48788/99
by Dragomir HADŽIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 December 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrM. Pellonpää, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 17 December 1998 and registered on 14 June 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Croatian citizen, born in 1931 and living in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Mr Milorad Lukač, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicant had served as a dentist in the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) from 1959 to 1991. His post was in Zagreb, Croatia.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
By an order of the Commander of the Fifth Military Zone of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Komandant V. Vojne Oblasti) of 4 June 1991 it was decided that, due to his age, the applicant’s military service would end on 31 December 1991. Subsequently, by a decision of the Belgrade Military Social Security Fund (Zavod za socijalno osiguranje vojnih osiguranika) of 25 December 1991, the applicant’s right to pension was recognised as from 1 January 1992 in the amount of 21, 187.20 dinars.
In 1994 the applicant asked the Croatian authorities to recognise his right to a pension. By a decision of 25 February 1994 the Croatian Social Security Fund - Zagreb Office (Republički fond mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja radnika Hrvatske - Područni ured Zagreb) rejected the applicant’s request, stating that the applicant failed to join the Croatian army prior to 31 December 1991.
The applicant unsuccessfully appealed that decision and after his appeal was rejected on 5 April 1994, instituted administrative proceedings. On 22 December 1994 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s claim.
On 1 March 1995 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, which was rejected by the Constitutional Court on 30 June 1998.
Pursuant to Rule 49 § 2 (a) of the Rules of the Court on 28 April 2000 the Government was asked to submit a copy of the decision by which the Yugoslav People’s Army officers were called upon to make themselves available for service in the Croatian army prior to 31 December 1991.
On 11 May 2000 the Government submitted their reply enclosing a copy of their decision (Zaključci) of 16 October 1991 where, inter alia, the Croatian Government guaranteed to Yugoslav People’s Army officers and soldiers who voluntarily left the YPA troops based in the Croatian territory prior to 10 November 1999 at midnight the following: personal safety, the same status as they have had in the YPA and an organised and unhindered possibility to leave the territory of Croatia for those who wished to do so.
On 6 June 2000 the applicant submitted his response arguing that the above-said Government’s decision has never been published in the Official Gazette (Narodne Novine) and that that decision had not called upon the Yugoslav People’s Army officers to make themselves available for the service in the Croatian army prior to 31 December 1991. He further claims that no such act has ever been officially issued.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant parts of the former Yugoslav People’s Army Officers’ Pensions Act (1993 - Zakon o ostvarivanju prava iz mirovnskog i invalidskog osigurnja pripadnika bivše JNA) read as follows:
Article 4
“A person whose status as an active officer in the former YPA in the territory of the Republic of Croatia ended prior to 31 December 1991, and who had not until that date obtained rights from pension and invalidity insurance may obtain such rights if he fulfils the conditions required of army personnel in order to obtain rights concerning pension and invalidity insurance in accordance with the Military Personnel Pensions Act (Zakon o mirovinskom i invalidskom osiguranju vojnih osiguranika – Official Gazette no. 53/91, 73/91, 18/92 and 71/92) and if:
...
– he had made himself available for the service in the Croatian army prior to 31 December 1991,
...”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention in connection with Article 14 that he has been exposed to degrading treatment and discrimination against him.
He further complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, without specifying the content of such complaints.
He finally complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the refusal of the Croatian authorities to recognise his right to a pension violates his property rights.
THE LAW
1. As to the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in connection with Article 14, as well as under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, the Court notes that those complaints are unsubstantiated in any respect.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, and as such must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
2. The applicant further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the refusal of the Croatian authorities to recognise his right to a pension under Croatian law although he has fulfilled the conditions for the old-age pension violates his right to property.
The Court notes that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that it is, therefore, necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) 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 his right to property was violated by the refusal of the Croatian authorities to recognise his right to a pension;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy