CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 septembre 2001

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 34 September 2001 Hadžić v. Croatia (dec.) - 48788/99 Decision 13.9.2001 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Possessions Failure to meet requirements set by domestic law for entitlement to pension: inadmissible The applicant served in the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) until 1991, after which his retirement was decided. He received a pension from the Yugoslav Federal Military Social Security Fund until 1993. The payments stopped at his own request, after he had decided to file an application for a pension in Croatia, which he did in 1994. However, the Croatian Social Security Fund rejected his request on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements for a pension as he had not joined the Croatian army before 31 December 1991. The applicant, whose appeal against this decision was unsuccessful, instituted administrative proceedings. The Administrative Court having rejected his request, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint claiming that his right to property had been violated by the Administrative Court’s decision which denied his right to pension. The Constitutional Court rejected his complaint. Inadmissible under Article 1 Protocol N° 1: Although no right to a pension as such is guaranteed by the Convention, the payments of contributions to a social security fund may create a property right protected by Article 1 of Protocol N° 1. Moreover, as regards the pecuniary nature of the entitlement to a given social security benefit, Article 1 of Protocol N°   1 is applicable without it being necessary to rely solely on the link between entitlement and the obligation to pay taxes and contributions. In the instant case, the applicant claimed that he had a pecuniary right to an old-age pension under Croatian law. The applicant’s right to the old-age pension fell within the ambit of the present article. However, the applicant had to fulfil the conditions laid out in domestic law. In this respect, States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in regulating social policy, including the right to regulate independently their pension system. In the instant case, one of the conditions for former officers of the YPA to have a right to a pension under Croatian law was that they had made themselves available for the service in the Croatian army prior to 31 December 1991. It was undisputed that the applicant had failed to do so and therefore did not fulfil the conditions for a pension as prescribed by Croatian law. The fact that the applicant obtained Croatian citizenship did not entitle him to a pension in Croatia, nor did it make him fulfil the requirements for a pension. Therefore, there was no interference with the applicant’s property rights within the meaning of the present article: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes