CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 20 June 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 39998/20 Petar TOMAS against Croatia lodged on 24 August 2020 communicated on 30 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 5 July 2010 the applicant was awarded a military disability pension as a war veteran. Following the initiation of criminal proceedings against him for fraud and forgery of the documents on the basis of which his military pension had been obtained, the pension decision of 5 July 2010 was quashed by the administrative authorities. On 30 April 2012 a new decision was issued recognizing his right to a disability pension as of 5 July 2010, but in a lower amount as a disabled civilian. In 2019 applicant was ultimately convicted as charged to a suspended sentence and ordered to reimburse the amount of 88,836.97 Croatian kunas (HRK), that is to say all pension amounts paid to him between 5 November 2009 and 30 April 2012. The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the court ordered him to reimburse the entire amount of pension received in the above period, although during that period he had been entitled to a pension as a disabled civilian, according to the decision of 30 April 2012. The court could have thus obliged him to reimburse only the difference between the military pension paid to him and the pension to which he had actually been entitled as a disabled civilian, which amounted to about HRK 8,000. This deprived him of the right to a pension as a disabled civilian during the period in question. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was that deprivation necessary to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?   2.     Was the applicant able to claim retroactively payment of the amounts of pension he was entitled to receive as a disabled civilian in the period between 5 November 2009 and 30 April 2012? The Government are invited to provide the Court with relevant jurisprudence in this respect.