Communicated on 16 June 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 26813/15 Anto NEDIĆ against Croatia lodged on 28 May 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Anto Nedić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Tolisa , Bosnia and Herzegovina. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Nedić , a lawyer practising in Osijek.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 17 November 2008 the Zagreb Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (hereinafter the “Fund”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an invalidity pension and fixing it in the monthly amount of 2,433.05 Croatian kuna from 1 July 2006.

Since the amounts due for the years 2007 and 2008 had not been paid to the applicant, on 1 September 2011 he brought a civil action against the Fund in the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court, seeking payment of his pension arrears, together with any statutory default interest due on his unpaid monthly pension instalments.

On 31 October 2012 the first-instance court granted the claim. However, that judgment was reversed by the Zagreb County Court on 2 September 2014 on the grounds that the means for paying the applicant ’ s pension arrears had not been secured in the State budget.

A constitutional complaint subsequently lodged by the applicant was dismissed on 31 March 2015.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possession was violated.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

2. If so, was the interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

3. Was the interference necessary in order to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], n o. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?