CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 octobre 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 23 October 2000 Janković v. Croatia (dec.) - 43440/98 Decision 12.10.2000 [Section IV] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Military pension for retired officer of the Yugoslav People’s army lowered by Croatian authorities: inadmissible   Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Reasonable time Length of constitutional proceedings: inadmissible   Article 14 Discrimination Military pension of retired officer of the Yugoslav People’s army inferior to that of retired officers of the Croatian army: inadmissible   The applicant, who retired in 1987 from the Yugoslav People’s Army, was paid a military pension representing 85% of his average wage until the dissolution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991. In 1992, the Croatian social security authorities assessed the pension to be vested with him at 63.22% of his previous pension. The applicant lodged successive appeals against the decision fixing the amount of his new pension without success. According to the Government, the pensions of former officers of the Yugoslav People’s army were increased in 1993 to reach 73% of what they amounted to in December 1991. The Government added that they had been increased the same year to take account of the increase in salaries and in 1997 to match the increase in living expenses. In 1993 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint which the Constitutional Court dismissed in 1999. Inadmissible under Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 and 14: Article 1 of Protocol No.1 cannot be interpreted as giving an individual a right to a pension of a particular amount. In the present case, the applicant’s pension was reduced, but was not inferior to pensions of other categories of pensioners. The reduction of the former Yugoslav People’s Army officers pensions by Croatian authorities was a means of integrating those pensions into the Croatian general pension system. States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in regulating their social policy and the fact that the pensions attributed to retired officers of the Croatian Army were higher that those of officers of the former Yugoslav People’s Army fell within this margin of appreciation and the State’s freedom to grant them to the categories of citizens considered appropriate. The applicant lost part of his pension as a military official but retained all the rights attached to his ordinary pension under the general social insurance system. Consequently, his pecuniary rights relating to the payment of his pension remained unchanged. Therefore, his right to derive benefits from the social insurance scheme was not infringed in a manner contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in particular as the loss of a certain percentage of his pension did not result in the essence of his pension rights being impaired. Divesting the applicant of a part of his pension did not amount to a discrimination contrary to Article 14: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The period to be taken into account, following the entry into force of the Convention in Croatia on 5 November 1997, amount to one year and four months. Although the obligation for domestic courts to deal with a case within a reasonable time applies also to Constitutional Courts, it cannot be construed in the same way as for ordinary courts. As a guardian of the Constitution, Constitutional Courts may take into consideration other elements than the chronological order in which cases have been entered on their list, such as the importance of a case in political and social terms. In addition to the reasonable length of court proceedings, the present Article lays emphasis on the general principle of the proper administration of justice. In the instant case, it was reasonable for the Constitutional Court to join, as it did, all cases concerning      pension rights of former Yugoslav People’s Army officers. The Government justified the delay by the enactment of several laws concerning the decrease of these pensions and the examination of the Yugoslav Military Pensions Act. Moreover, the case involved complex legal questions regarding the obligations of Croatia towards retired officers of the Yugoslav People’s Army in the context of the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia after which no State succession agreement was reached. Overall, the delay does not appear substantial enough for the length of the constitutional proceedings to exceed a reasonable time: 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