FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 50115/99 by Dragiša LAZAREVIĆ against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 4 May 2000 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress, President ,

Mr I. Cabral Barreto,

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 31 May 1999 and registered on 3 August 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Croatian citizen of Serbian origin, born in 1940 and living in Rijeka (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 1991 he 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 November 1991, following the dissolution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Two separate proceedings took place, in respect of the decrease in the applicant’s military pension.

Firstly, on 30 December 1992, the Croatian Social Security Fund, Rijeka 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 appealed against that decision and after his appeal was dismissed, instituted administrative proceedings with the Administrative Court, which dismissed the applicant’s claim on 9 April 1994.

On 4 June 1994 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging that the decisions of the administrative bodies and the Administrative Court violated his constitutional rights. On 3 March 1999 that court dismissed the applicant’s complaint.

Secondly, the applicant lodged another complaint with the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of the Act incorporating into Croatian law the former federal law regulating the pension insurance for military personnel enacted in 1991 and altered several times in 1991 and 1992. On 4 February 1998 the Court terminated those proceedings, due to the enactment of new laws regulating the same matter.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant firstly complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the reduction of his pension represents ill-treatment.

He further alleges, in substance, that the reduction of his pension violated his right to property.

The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 regarding the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

Finally, he complains under Article 14 of the Convention that the decision to decrease the amount of his pension discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin.

THE LAW

1. The applicant’s complaints related to the proceedings that were terminated by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 4 February 1998 were introduced to the Court on 31 May 1999. This part of the application is out of the six months period prescribed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, and therefore, must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §4.

2. The applicant also complains in respect of the proceedings concerning his constitutional complaint introduced on 4 June 1994 and terminated by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 3 March 1999.

a) As to the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention the Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate that claim in any respect.

It follows that his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

b) The applicant also complains that the reduction of his pension violated his right to property, without invoking any provision of the Convention. The Court considers that this claim should be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

c) The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 that the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court was excessive and that the failure of that court to decide his case on the merits violated his right of access to court.

d) Finally, the applicant complains that the decision of the Croatian authorities to reduce his pension discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin, as he alleges that the majority of the former Yugoslav People’s Army officers, whose pensions were reduced, are of Serbian national origin.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the applicant’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 regarding the applicant’s right to property, Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention regarding the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and the right not to be discriminated against, 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 complaints that the applicant’s right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was violated, that the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that he was discriminated against on the basis of his national origin within the meaning of Article 14 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.