CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center }   Communicated on 7 September 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 57863/14 Nada ĐEKIĆ against Croatia lodged on 8 August 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the interference with the applicant’s right to property when she was ordered to reimburse to the Croatian Pension Fund the pension amounts, together with the statutory default interests, she had received between 1998 and 2002. It was due to the omission of that body, which in 2002 annulled its decision of 1998 and dismissed the applicant’s request for the lack of jurisdiction. In 2003 the Croatian Pension Fund adopted a new decision granting the applicant pension rights as of 1   May 2003. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the national courts’ decisions deprive the applicant of her possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1? If so, was the interference justified under this provision? In particular, was it proportionate (compare to, for example, Moskal v. Poland , no.   10373/05, §§   49-76, 15   September 2009)?   The Government are requested to provide all documents regarding the applicant’s case.