CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mars 2023

.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 } .sF023082F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:justify } .s61D97F80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.25pt; text-align:justify } Published on 20 March 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 59726/21 Zdenka JELUŠIĆ against Croatia lodged on 1 December 2021 communicated on 3 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the discontinuation of the applicant’s old-age pension on account of the fact that she had acquired the status of a full-time parent carer ( roditelj njegovatelj ) of her disabled son. In 1998 the applicant went into early retirement in order to take care of her son, who had become tetraplegic as a result of a traffic accident. She was awarded a pension in the amount of 3,000 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 400 euros (EUR)). In September 2014 she was recognised as a full-time parent carer of her son, entitled to receive HRK 2,500 (EUR 333). In October 2014 the competent authority discontinued paying the applicant her old-age pension because she had become parent carer to her son. In subsequent administrative proceedings, the Rijeka Administrative Court quashed the decision on the discontinuation of the pension, holding that it had been unacceptable for an individual who took on full-time care of a disabled person, thus replacing the State’s constitutional obligation to care for the disabled, to lose a previously recognised right to receive a pension and ultimately receive a lower amount of income. This decision was quashed on appeal by the High Administrative Court which noted that the State’s constitutional obligation to protect disabled persons was related to the applicant’s son and not to the applicant, and that it could not be said that the recognition of the applicant’s status of a parent carer could have violated her son’s constitutional rights. On 28 October 2021 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint finding that the interference with her property rights had been proportionate on account of the State’s right to protect its property interests. The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, about the unfairness of the administrative proceedings and the violation of her property rights. She also complains, under Article 14 of the Convention, about discrimination by association. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference lawful and in the general interest? Did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see   Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of her son’s disability, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto (compare Guberina v. Croatia , no.   23682/13, §§ 66 et seq., 22 March 2016)?