CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 mai 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sCC843BA8 { width:25.33pt; display:inline-block } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .sD49C56F { width:262.16pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } FOURTH SECTION   PARTIAL DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 50965/99 by Ilija LABUŠ against Croatia     The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 May 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   G. Ress, President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto,   Mr   V. Butkevych,   Mrs   N. Vajić,   Mr   J. Hedigan,   Mr   M. Pellonpää,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova , judges , [Note1] and   Mr   V. Berger, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced on 1 July 1999 and registered on 16 September 1999,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is a Croatian citizen, born in 1920 and residing 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 1970 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. The applicant alleges that the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia agreed on 8 October 1991 in Mohacz (Hungary) that the pensions of the 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 their full amount.     Three separate proceedings took place, relating to the decrease of the applicant’s military pension.     Firstly, on 12 December 1992, the Croatian Social Security Fund, Zagreb Office, assessed the applicant’s pension, as from 1 October 1992, to 63,22 % of the amount he had received until and in December 1991. The applicant appealed that decision, and after his appeal was dismissed, instituted administrative proceedings. On 26 May 1993 the Administrative Court rejected his complaint. The applicant did not lodge a constitutional complaint against that decision.     During 1991, 1992 and on 18 October 1993 the Croatian Parliament passed several laws 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.     Secondly, on 8 February 1993 the applicant lodged his first claim challenging the constitutionality of the several laws enacted in 1991 and 1992. On 4 February 1998 the Constitutional Court terminated the proceedings due to the enactment of new legislation.     Thirdly, on 9 March 1998 he lodged his second complaint challenging the constitutionality of the law enacted in 1993. On 20 January 1999 the Constitutional Court terminated the proceedings due to new legislation enacted on 1 January 1999, which regulates pension rights of all Croatian citizens, including the former Yugoslav Army officers.     COMPLAINTS     The applicant contends that the decision to decrease the amount of his pension violated his right, under Article 14 of the Convention, not to be discriminated against and his right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.             He further complains in respect of the two separate proceedings before the Constitutional Court regarding the constitutionality of the laws that served as the basis for the reduction of his pension and that ended with its decisions of 4 February 1998 and 20   January   1999, respectively, that that court failed to decide his claims on the merits. The applicant does not invoke any provision of the Convention.     THE LAW     The applicant’s complaints relate to three separate proceedings.   1.   Firstly, the applicant makes complaints in regard to the proceedings concerning the reduction of his military pension under Article 14 of the Convention. He further claims that the reduction 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 and invokes 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 26 May 1993 and that the applicant failed to lodge a constitutional claim 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 of the Convention.   2.   Secondly, the applicant complains in regard to the proceedings concerning the constitutionality of the laws that served as a basis for the decrease of the applicant’s pension. In this respect, he alleges that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his claim on the merits. He does not invoke any provision of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint raises an issue of the right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     The Court further notes that the applicant instituted two separate proceedings with the Constitutional Court challenging the laws that regulated the former Yugoslav People’s Army military personnel pension rights.   a)   In respect of the complaint concerning the Constitutional Court’s decision of 4   February 1998, the applicant failed to observe the six months period. Therefore, the part of the application referring to that claim is inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.   b)   In respect to the complaint concerning the Constitutional Court’s decision of 20   January 1999, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the right of access to court, 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 complaint that he was deprived of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that it is, therefore, necessary, in accordance with Rule   54 §   3   (b) [Note3] of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government;     DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.                 Vincent Berger                                                                                    Georg Ress   Registrar   President               [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]   Change as necessary.