FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 50943/99
by Stevo RAJKOVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 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 30 June 1999 and registered on 16 September 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Croatian citizen, born in 1920 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 1959 he 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.
In 1991 Croatia enacted a law adopting the former federal law that had regulated the pension and disability rights of the military personnel. During 1991 and 1992 that law had been changed several times by decrees of the Croatian government and acts of Parliament.
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 and in December 1991. The applicant appealed against that decision and after his appeal was dismissed, instituted administrative proceedings with the Administrative Court, which dismissed the applicant’s claim on 8 July 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 shall be 63,22 % of what they had received in December 1991.
On 25 March 1994 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint claiming that the decisions of the administrative bodies and the Administrative Court had violated his constitutional rights to protection of property and not to be discriminated against.
As from 1 January 1999 the Parliament enacted new legislation that regulating the pension rights of all Croatian citizens, including the former Yugoslav Army officers.
On 28 April 1999 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The decision was reasoned as follows:
(translation from Croatian)
“The rights of military pensioners, who retired before 8 October 1991 and who had been citizens of the Republic of Croatia with residence therein and to whom the payments of their pensions were terminated by the Social Security Fund of Military Personnel, were regulated by the Act then in force incorporating into Croatian law the former federal law regulating the pension insurance for military personnel (the Military Pensions Act), which is to be applied in the Republic of Croatia as its own law.
Article 1 of the Decree that altered the Military Pensions Act, which is to be applied in the Republic of Croatia as its own law, served as a basis to determine the amount of the applicant’s pension by the first instance decision. That Article altered Article 3b, § 2 of the above mentioned Act, providing that pensions determined by Article 3b § 1 of the same Act will be paid in the amount of 63,22 % of what had been paid in December 1991.
The Constitutional Court has determined that the challenged acts were based on the laws that were in force at that time and that the applicant’s constitutional right on which he relies in his claim was not violated.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention.
He further complains, in substance, that by reduction of his pension his property rights were violated.
He also complains, in substance, that the failure of the Constitutional Court to provide adequate reasoning for rejecting his constitutional complaint violated his right to a fair trial.
THE LAW
1.The applicant firstly complains under Articles 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention.
The Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate those claims in any respect. Furthermore, as to the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court notes that the applicant had remedies, such as instituting administrative proceedings before the Administrative Court and a constitutional complaint.
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.
2.The applicant further complains that the reduction of his pension violates his right to property and that the lack of adequate reasoning of the Constitutional Court’s decision violates his right to a fair trial.
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the applicant’s complaints about his right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the right to a fair trial, 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 complaints[Note3] that he was deprived of a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that his right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was violated;
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.
[Note3]Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy