FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 21664/16 Sonja ANGJELKOVIKJ against North Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 16 December 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Mārtiņš Mits, President, Jovan Ilievski, Ivana Jelić, judges, and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 21664/16) against the Republic of North Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 13 April 2016 by a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, Ms Sonja Angjelkovikj, who was born in 1953 and lives in Skopje (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr Z. Hadji-Zafirov, a lawyer practising in Skopje;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the alleged discrimination suffered by the applicant, on the grounds of her residence, in the enjoyment of her pension rights (Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mrs D. Djonova, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties observation;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case mainly concerns the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention regarding discrimination in the enjoyment of the applicant’s pension rights, on account of the inclusion in the salary package of her eligible colleagues of a work-related allowance for travel between the place of residence and the workplace. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.1.

2. In 2009 the respondent State introduced a legislative reform regarding the calculation and payment of salary to State employees. The reform changed the structure of salary of State employees in that it provided, inter alia , for the inclusion in it of a monetary travel allowance payable (by the employer) to employees whose place of residence was more than 2 km from the workplace (before the reform the eligible employees had obtained the allowance separately from salary). The pension contributions, the cumulative amount of which had direct bearing on the amount of State employees’ pension, continued to be calculated as a percentage of their salary and paid by employers to the pension fund for each employee individually. In the domestic proceedings instituted in 2014 against the employer and before the Court, the applicant, a State employee, alleged that the measure in question increased the amount of salary of employees in receipt of that allowance and consequently led to higher pension contributions being paid for them than those paid for her (she did not meet the distance requirement and was not receiving the allowance before and after the reform). The resulting effect of the above concept was that in future she would allegedly receive a lower pension than her colleagues with equal qualifications who met the distance requirement and, accordingly, were in receipt of the travel allowance.

3. The applicant complained that such a difference in treatment discriminated against her in the enjoyment of her pension rights on the grounds of her place of residence and, accordingly, was in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, she also complained that she had not obtained the travel allowance, which affected the amount of her pension.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

4. The Government raised several objections as regards the admissibility of the application. The Court, however, will examine of its own motion the applicant’s victim status as a matter which goes to its jurisdiction (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 70, 5 July 2016).

5. The Court notes that the applicant’s allegations concerned the alleged adverse impact on her pension rights resulting from the inclusion of the travel allowance in the salary of eligible State employees. Accordingly, her pleadings may be understood as complaining of a particular aspect of the legislative reform of 2009 which allegedly created inequality between State employees with equal qualifications in that the amount of their pension would differ depending whether they were paid the travel allowance or not while employed.

6. The Court observes that the applicant was still employed when she brought the discrimination proceedings against the employer. In the examination of the applicant’s claim, the domestic courts did not specifically address the prospective nature of her allegations that in the future she would receive a lower pension on account of the inclusion of the travel allowance in the salary of eligible employees with equal qualifications as hers. It is to be noted that as of 2018, the time of the last exchanges between the parties, the applicant was of pensionable age and met the statutory requirement concerning the number of years of work. However, the applicant did not inform the Court that she has retired. Neither has she argued nor submitted any evidence that the amount of her pension was lower compared with that of former colleagues who were in receipt of the travel allowance while employed.

7. Accordingly, and having regard to the general principles regarding an applicant’s “victim” status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 96 and 101, ECHR 2014), the Court considers that the applicant did not prove that she was a “victim” of the alleged violations in relation to her pension rights.

8. It follows that the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 20 January 2022.

Martina Keller Mārtiņš Mits Deputy Registrar President