FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 48084/99
by Aleksandar KRALJEK
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 May 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,[Note1]
andMrV. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 21 October 1998 and registered on 11 May 1999,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Croatian citizen, born in 1932 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 1988 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 December 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 that the pensions of 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, at 63,22 % of the amount he had received until December 1991. The applicant appealed against that decision and after his appeal was dismissed, instituted administrative proceedings with the Administrative Court, which dismissed his claim on 2 September 1993.
On 18 October 1993 the Croatian Parliament passed a law 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 was 63,22 % of what they had received in December 1991.
On 11 December 1993 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint challenging the new law.
On 20 January 1999 the Constitutional Court terminated the proceedings due to the enactment of new legislation that regulates the pension rights of all Croatian citizens, including the former Yugoslav Army officers.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant firstly complains that the reduction of his pension violated Article 1 of the Convention and his right to freedom of thought under Article 9 of the Convention.
He also complains that such a decision violated his right to property under Article 1 of protocol No. 1.
Finally, the applicant complains that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his claim, without specifying any provision of the Convention.
THE LAW
1.The applicant complains under Articles 1 and 9 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the reduction of his pension violated his right to freedom of thought and his right to property.
a)The Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate his claims under Articles 1 and 9 of the Convention 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 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
b)As to the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the Court notes that the final decision in the proceedings concerning the decrease of the applicant’s pension was given by the Administrative Court on 2 September 1993 and that the applicant failed to lodge a constitutional complaint against that decision. The Court also notes that the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997, and that, therefore, this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
2.The applicant further complains, without specifying any provision of the Convention, that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his claim. The Court considers that this complaint raises an issue of the right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaints 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.)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy