Communicated on 8 October 2015
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 6161/13
Branka UZELAC
against Croatia
lodged on 10 December 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Branka Uzelac, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Zagreb. She is represented before the Court by Mr M. Ličina, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Administrative proceedings
In 1997 the applicant applied for a pension to the Gospić, Regional Service of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Područna služba u Gospiću, hereinafter “the Gospić Pension Fund”).
On 16 February 1998 the Gospić Pension Fund issued a temporary decision granting the applicant the right to a pension until the implementation of the Law on Convalidation (for the validation of working years for pension purposes).
On 26 March 2001 the Central Service of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnja služba, hereinafter “the Central Pension Fund”) re-examined the applicant’s case of its own motion. It established that the Gospić Pension Fund did not have jurisdiction to decide the applicant’s case, given that her most recent employment had not been in Croatia. This resulted in it quashing the first-instance administrative decision and remitting the case for reconsideration.
In a fresh round of proceedings, on 4 May 2001, the Gospić Pension Fund dismissed the applicant’s claim for a pension on the grounds that the Fund lacked jurisdiction.
On 24 October 2001 the Gospić Pension Fund issued a new decision granting the applicant the right to a pension, with effect from 19 June 2001.
2. Civil proceedings
On 3 November 2005 the Central Pension Fund brought a civil claim against the applicant, seeking repayment of 51,208.36 Croatian kunas (HRK) (about 6,800 euros (EUR)) for pension payments received between 1 November 1997 and 31 December 2000.
On 18 November 2011 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu) allowed the claim.
Upon an appeal by the applicant, the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) upheld the first-instance judgment on 12 June 2012.
The applicant then lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court, which was declared inadmissible on 8 November 2012.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains of an infringement of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the Zagreb Municipal Court’s judgment of 18 November 2011 deprive the applicant of her possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was this interference justified under this provision? In particular, was it proportionate?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy