CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 novembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4D040A4F { width:9.67pt; display:inline-block } .s4510D3C8 { width:103.08pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 25701/11 Žarko MILOSAVLJEVIĆ against Croatia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4   November 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, President,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Ksenija Turković, judges, and Søren Prebensen, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 April 2011, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Žarko Milosavljević, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1936 and lives in Osijek. He was represented before the Court by Mr K. Vukšić, a lawyer practising in Osijek. 2.     The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background to the applicant’s case 4.     The facts forming the background to the applicant’s case are set out in the case of Kovačević and Others v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 45903/08, §§ 4-15, 8 July 2014). 2.     Proceedings in the applicant’s case 5.     The applicant retired on 1 July 1992. 6.     In 2005, HPB-Invest, a private investment company in charge of the management of the Pensioners’ Fund from which the compensation for the so-called “pension debt” was being paid, informed the applicant that the amount owed to him on that account equalled zero; in other words, he was not entitled to any compensation. 7.     On 25 January 2006 the applicant requested the Osijek Regional Office of the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, područna služba u Osijeku ) to re-calculate the amount of compensation owed to him. 8.     By a decision of 27 February 2006 the Osijek Regional Office declared the applicant’s request inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction. The   relevant part of that decision reads as follows: “Section 1 paragraph 2 of [the Implementation Act] provides that compensation is to be obtained through a special fund. Given that, pursuant to the said Act, the ... compensation is not to be obtained through the Croatian Pension Fund but through the Pensioners’ Fund, this authority does not have jurisdiction to decide on the request submitted.” 9.     On 4 April 2006 the Central Office of the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje – Središnja služba ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision, repeating the reasons given therein. The applicant then brought an action for judicial review in the Administrative Court ( Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ). 10.     By a judgment of 12 February 2008 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action, endorsing the reasons given by the Fund. 11.     By a decision of 16 March 2011 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) declared inadmissible the applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 12.     The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the case of Kovačević and Others v. Croatia (cited above, §§ 50-85). COMPLAINT 13.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been deprived of access to court as he had been unable to contest, under the domestic law, the calculation of the amount of compensation he was due for the pension debt. THE LAW 14.     The Court notes that the present case does not differ in any respect from the case of Kovačević and Others v. Croatia (cited above) declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on 8 July 2014. It sees no reason to hold otherwise in the instant case. 15.     It follows that the present application is also inadmissible under Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article   35   §   4 thereof. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Søren Prebensen   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska Acting Deputy Registrar President