CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 mars 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s63D113AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s936EB0A2 { width:17.01pt; display:inline-block } .s8354CF86 { width:259.15pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION   PARTIAL DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application no. 45424/99 by Nikola TRUHLI against Croatia       The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 March 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   M. Pellonpää, President ,   Mr   G. Ress,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto,   Mr   V. Butkevych,   Mrs   N. Vajić,   Mr   J. Hedigan,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova, judges , and   Mr   V. Berger, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 September 1998 and registered on 15 January 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 1936 and residing in Pula (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 1987 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.     On 12 December 1992, the Croatian Social Security Fund, Pula Office, assessed the applicant's pension, as from 1 October 1991, to 63,22 % of the amount he had received until and in December 1991. The applicant appealed against which decision and after his appeal was dismissed, instituted administrative proceedings with the Administrative Court, which dismissed the applicant's claim on 10 September 1992.     On 29 April 1993 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint claiming that the decisions of the administrative bodies and the Administrative Court to decrease the amount of his pension violated his constitutional rights.     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 5 November 1993 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against that law, challenging the constitutionality of the latter as a whole.     On 20 January 1999 the Constitutional Court terminated the proceedings regarding both constitutional claims of the applicant due to the enactment of new legislation regulating the pension rights of all Croatian citizens, including former Yugoslav Army officers.     COMPLAINTS     The applicant complains under Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention that the decision to decrease the amount of his pension represents a humiliation, that he himself and his wife do not have sufficient means for living and that the decision taken was discriminating. He also alleges violations of Articles 3 and 4 of Protocol No. 7, without specifying what these violations consist of.     He further complains in general terms, under Article 6 of the Convention and more specifically under Article 6 § 1, about the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.     He also claims that his right to property was violated under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1.     The applicant finally complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, that he has not had an effective remedy at his disposal since the Constitutional Court declined to decide the merits of his complaint regarding the decrease of his pension.     THE LAW   1.   The applicant complains under Articles 3, 8, and 14 of the Convention, and Articles 3 and 4 of Protocol No. 7. He further complains, in general terms, under Article 6 of the Convention.     The Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate any of those claims, except for the allegations concerning the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.     It follows that, save for the length of proceedings issue, 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 under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the decrease of his pension as from 1 October 1991 to 63,22 % of the amount that he had received until and in December 1991 violates his right to property. Finally, the applicant alleges under Article 13 of the Convention, that he was deprived of an effective remedy in that the Constitutional Court declined to examine his complaint regarding the decrease of his pension on the merits. However, the Court considers that this complaint also raises an issue of the right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     The Court considers 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 Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention regarding the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and the right of access to court 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 complaints that his right to property was violated by the reduction of the amount of his pension, that the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and that he was deprived of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention;   DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.         Vincent Berger   Matti Pellonpää   Registrar   President