CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 décembre 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 6 January 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 9461/24 Zorica GOLOMEJIĆ against Croatia lodged on 22 March 2024 communicated on 9 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s loss of financial assistance granted by the local authorities for the so-called child-rearing parents ( roditelji odgojitelji ). In particular, by a decision of 15 December 2016, the City of Zagreb granted the applicant financial assistance for child-rearing parents. That individual decision was based on the 2016 Decision adopted by the City, a piece of subordinate legislation entitling unemployed parents with three or more children to receive a monthly financial assistance equal to the average net salary in Croatia, until their youngest child turned fifteen. In 2021 the new local government decided to abolish the benefit in question and adopted the 2021 Amendments to the 2016 Decision. The Amendments provided that the existing beneficiaries would keep receiving the assistance in question but only until their youngest child turned seven, and progressively reduced its level. By a judgment of the High Administrative Court of 5   July 2022, in proceedings for abstract review of the legality of subordinate legislation, those Amendments were invalidated as incompatible with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. On 8 September 2022 the City of Zagreb again amended the 2016 Decision. Those 2022 Amendments also provided that the existing beneficiaries would keep receiving the assistance until their youngest child turned seven but this time the transitional period during which the level of that assistance would be progressively reduced was longer compared to the 2021 Amendments. In addition, the 2022 Amendments were accompanied by measures to increase the number of places available in child-care facilities, and those aimed at facilitating reintegration of the existing beneficiaries into the labour market. By a decision of 4 November 2022, the City of Zagreb amended its earlier individual decision in the applicant’s case of 15 December 2016, in line with the 2022 Amendments. The applicant then challenged those Amendments before the High Administrative Court in proceedings for abstract review of the legality of subordinate legislation. On 27 February 2023 that court adopted a judgment in a similar, pilot, case in which it dismissed several petitions for review of the legality of the 2022 Amendments. The applicant was notified of the pilot judgment and the proceedings she herself instituted were discontinued. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 14 November 2023, which notified her of its decision on 23 November 2023. Before the Court the applicant complains that the unilateral amendment of the final decision of 15 December 2016, and the resultant reduction of her financial assistance for child-rearing parents, was in breach of the principle of res judicata and disproportionate, and thus contrary to Article 6 § 1 and Article   8 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the City of Zagreb’s decision of 4 November 2022 to amend its earlier final decision of 15 December 2016 in breach of the principle of legal certainty inherent in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? More specifically, was the City of Zagreb’s decision of 4   November 2022 contrary to sections 13 and 130(1) of the General Administrative Procedure Act, and was that issue (sufficiently) addressed by the domestic courts (see Moskal v. Poland , no.   10373/05, §§ 49-83, 15 September 2009)?   2.     Was the City of Zagreb’s decision of 4 November 2022 in breach of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life guaranteed by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Beeler v.   Switzerland ([GC], no. 78630/12, § 72, 11   October 2022; and Belli and Arquier-Martinez v. Switzerland , no.   65550/13, §§ 114-125, 11 December 2018)?   3.     Was the City of Zagreb’s decision of 4 November 2022 in breach of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? In particular, was the resultant interference lawful and proportionate (see Moskal , cited above, §§ 49-76; Hasani v. Croatia (dec.), no. 20844/09, 30 September 2010; and Čakarević v. Croatia , no. 48921/13, §§ 71-91, 26 April 2018)?