CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 2024

.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 16 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6354/23 Boško BARBA against Croatia lodged on 28 January 2023 communicated on 27 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns statutory default interest on monthly instalments of disability benefit. In particular, by a decision of the Ministry of Defence of 23 January 1997 the applicant was granted the status of a disabled war veteran with 50% disability, and a corresponding amount of a disability benefit ( invalidnina ) from 1 June 1996. The applicant challenged this decision before the Administrative Court. As a result, the Ministry eventually, by a decision of 11 May 2005, granted him the status of a disabled war veteran with 80% disability, and a corresponding amount of the disability benefit from 1 June 1996. The difference between the levels of the benefit established by the first and the second decision was paid to the applicant. However, he was never paid statutory default interest accrued on each monthly instalment. He therefore brought a civil action against the State seeking payment of that interest. The domestic courts dismissed his claim, finding that the State’s debt to the applicant had been established only with the Ministry’s second decision, of 11 May 2005. That debt had been immediately paid to him, including the difference between the levels of the benefit established by the first and the second decision. The State had thus never been in default which would have justified awarding him statutory default interest. Before the Court the applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that the domestic courts’ refusal to award him statutory default interest was in breach of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the domestic courts’ refusal to award the applicant statutory default interest on the retroactively increased monthly instalments of his disability benefit in breach of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Čakarević v. Croatia , no.   48921/13, §§   50-53, 26 April 2018 and the cases cited therein)?