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 } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s936EB0A2 { width:17.01pt; display:inline-block } .s61C5AD29 { width:266.83pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; 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. 52748/99 by Momir JOVIĆ 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 6 October 1999 and registered on 18 November 1999,       Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is a Croatian national, born in 1933 and living in Rijeka (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 1983 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.     However, on 1 February 1993, the Croatian Social Security Fund, Rijeka 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 against that decision and after his appeal was dismissed, instituted administrative proceedings with the Administrative Court, which dismissed the applicant’s claim on 2 February 1994.     On 1 August 1994 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint claiming that the decisions of the administrative bodies and the Administrative Court violated his constitutional rights.     The Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s claim on 21 April 1999.     COMPLAINTS     The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the decision to decrease the amount of his pension represents a humiliation.     He further claims that his right to property was violated under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1.     He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.     Finally, the applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention that he was discriminated against.     THE LAW   1.   The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention.     The Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate that claim 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.     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.     He also complains under Article 6 § 1 that the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court was excessive     Finally, the applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention that the decision to reduce only the pension of the former Yugoslav people’s Army officers and of no other category of pensioners discriminated against them.     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, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and complaint under Article 14 of the Convention 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 his right to property was violated, that the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court exceeded a reasonable time of the Convention and that his right not to be discriminated against was violated;     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.