FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 46926/99 by Krunoslav LEONTIĆ 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 with the European Commission of Human Rights on 6 October 1998 and registered on 22 March 1999,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Croatian citizen, born in 1915 and living in Split (Croatia).

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

The case concerns two distinct issues - the decrease of the applicant’s military pension by Croatian authorities to 63,22 % of what it amounted to in December 1991 and the constitutionality of the laws setting conditions of sale to former Yugoslav People’s Army officers of the flats in which they are former holders of specially protected tenancies.

Firstly, the applicant served in the Yugoslav People’s Army and in 1971 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, Split 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 unsuccessfully appealed that decision, but then failed to institute administrative proceedings.

During 1991, 1992 and on 18 October 1993 the Croatian Parliament passed several laws on the regulation of pensions of the 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.

The applicant lodged two constitutional claims challenging the constitutionality of those laws and complaining about the reduction of his pension. 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 the former Yugoslav Army officers.

Secondly, the applicant contests the legislation regulating conditions of sale to the former Yugoslav People’s Army officers of the flats in which they are former holders of specially protected tenancies. The applicant challenged that legislation before the Constitutional Court, which, by its decision of 29 January 1997, altered or abolished several provisions of the contested law.

COMPLAINTS

1. Firstly, concerning the reduction of his military pension the applicant complains in relation to two sets of proceedings:

a) He complains that the decision to reduce the pensions of the 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. He also alleges, in general terms, that the reduction of his pension violated his rights under Articles 1, 2, 3, 6 §§ 2 and 3 and Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention.

b) In respect to the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 4 February 1998 and 20 January 1999, respectively, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his claim.

2. Secondly, the applicant complains, without invoking any specific provision of the Convention, that the effects of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 29 January 1997 that altered or abolished several provisions of the legislation regulating the conditions of sale to the former Yugoslav People’s Army officers of the flats in which they are former holders of specially protected tenancies violated his constitutional right of equality before the law.

THE LAW

1. Firstly, the applicant’s complaints relate to two separate proceedings concerning the decrease of his pension.

a) The applicant makes complaints under Articles 1, 2, 3, 6 §§ 2 and 3, 7, 8 and 14 of the Convention in regard to the proceedings concerning the reduction of his military pension.

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, Central Office in Zagreb on 23 February 1993 and that the applicant failed to institute proceedings before the administrative courts. 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.

b) The applicant also instituted two separate proceedings with the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of the laws that regulated the former Yugoslav People’s Army military personnel pension rights. Those proceedings terminated by the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 4 February 1998 and 20 January 1999, respectively.

In this respect, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his claims.

The Court notes that in respect of the complaints related to the proceedings terminated by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 4 February 1998, the applicant failed to observe the six months period, as he lodged his application with the Court on 6 October 1998.

It follows that the complaints related to those proceedings must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

As to the proceedings that terminated by 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 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.

2. Secondly, the applicant complains that the effects of the Constitutional Court’s decision that altered or abolished several provisions of the law regulating the conditions of sale to the former Yugoslav People’s Army officers of the flats in which they are former holders of specially protected tenancies, violated his constitutional right of equality before the law.

The Court notes that the final decision concerning that matter is of 29 January 1997, while the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997. This part of the application, is therefore, 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.

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.

Vincent 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.