FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 48077/99 by Josip BAKARIĆ against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 25 May 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress, President ,

Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo,

Mr V. Butkevych,

Mrs N. Vajić,

Mr J. Hedigan,

Mr M. Pellonpää,

Mrs S. Botoucharova , judges , [Note1]

and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application introduced on 20 April 1999 and registered on 11 May 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Croatian citizen, born in 1928 and living in Zagreb (Croatia).

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant served in the Yugoslav People’s Army and in 1983 retired from service. His military pension was assessed according to his rank and years of service and was paid from the Federal Pension Fund. The payments terminated in December 1991, following the dissolution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

However, on 12 December 1992, the Croatian Social Security Fund, Zagreb Office, assessed the applicant’s pension, as from 1 October 1992, at 63,22 % of the amount he had received until December 1991. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.

Instead, he lodged a constitutional claim challenging the constitutionality of the changes in the laws that served as the basis for the decision to reduce his pension. On 29 April 1992 the Constitutional Court decided not to consider the applicant’s claim.

During 1991, 1992 and on 18 October 1993 the Croatian Parliament passed several laws on the regulation of pensions of former Yugoslav People’s Army officers that, among other provisions, reiterated that the amount of the former Yugoslav Army officers’ pension shall be 63,22 % of what they had received in December 1991.

Subsequently, the applicant lodged two additional constitutional claims challenging the constitutionality those laws.

On 4 February 1998 and 20 January 1999, respectively, the Constitutional Court terminated the proceedings due to the enactment of new legislation. The latest such legislation was enacted on 1 January 1999 and it regulates the pension rights of all Croatian citizens, including former Yugoslav Army officers.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the decision to decrease the amount of his pension affected his family life.

He further claims that his right to property was violated under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

He also claims that the decision to reduce the pensions of former Yugoslav People’s Army officers was discriminatory within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention, as no other category of pensioners was subjected to such a regime.

Finally, the applicant complains that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his claims, without specifying any provision of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant’s complaints relate to four separate proceedings.

1. Firstly, the applicant makes complaints in regard to the proceedings concerning the reduction of his military pension under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. He further claims that the reduction of his pension as from 1 October 1991 to 63,22 % of the amount that he had received until December 1991 violates his right to property and invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The Court notes that the final decision in the proceedings concerning the decrease of the applicant’s pension was given by the Croatian Social Security Fund, Zagreb Office, on 12 December 1992 and that the applicant failed to appeal that decision. The Court also notes that the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997, and that, therefore, this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

2. Secondly, the applicant complains in regard of three sets of proceedings concerning the constitutionality of the laws serving as the basis for the decrease of the applicant’s pension. In this respect, he alleges that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his claims. He does not invoke any provision of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint may raise an issue of the right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

a) As to the complaint concerning the Constitutional Court’s decision of 29 April 1992, the Court notes that it is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention.

b) In respect of the complaint concerning the Constitutional Court’s decision of 4 February 1998, the applicant failed to observe the six months period when lodging his application with the Court on 22 April 1999. Therefore, the part of the application referring to that claim is inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

c) In respect to the complaint concerning the Constitutional Court’s decision of 20 January 1999, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the right of access to a court, and, that it is, therefore, necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) [Note2] of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint that he was deprived of the right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

V incent Berger                                                                                 Georg Ress    Registrar                                                                                                  President

[Note1] Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK ( Shift+Enter ). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.)

[Note2] Change as necessary.