Communicated on 17 November 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 77664/14 Neda REIĆ against Croatia lodged on 4 December 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Neda Reić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Split. She is represented before the Court by Ms M. Brčić , a lawyer practising in Split.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 2009 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings before the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje ) (“the Fund”) seeking to obtain a survivor ’ s pension ( obiteljska mirovina ) after her deceased mother. She relied on Section 64(3) of the Pension Insurance Act ( Zakon o mirovinskom osiguranju ), which provides that children of deceased insurees or pension beneficiaries are entitled to receive a survivor ’ s pension in the event they suffer a general inability to work ( opća nesposobnost za rad ), provided that their general inability to work occurred before the death of the insuree or pension beneficiary, and that the latter supported the child until his or her death.

On 26 February 2010 the Split Office of the Fund dismissed the applicant ’ s request. It found that on 10 November 2009 the applicant was granted a disability pension due to her general inability to work starting from 20 October 2009, while the applicant ’ s mother had died on 1 March 2009. It therefore found that the applicant was not entitled to receive the survivor ’ s pension.

In her appeal the applicant contested the findings of the Split Office. She argued that her condition had already been established before the death of her mother in the proceedings concerning her right to social welfare. In particular, that according to the decision of the Split Social Welfare Centre ( Centar za socijalnu skrb Split ) (“the Centre”) of 11 March 2009, she was established with total inability to work on 27 August 2008, pursuant to Section 43 of the Rules on the composition and work of the expert bodies in the process of exercising social welfare rights and other rights under special regulations ( Pravilnik o sastavu i načinu rada tijela vještačenja u postupku ostvarivanja prava iz socijalne skrbi i drugih prava po posebnim propisima ).

On 31 August 2010 the Central Office of the Fund dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal as unfounded and upheld the decision of the Split Office.

In her administrative claim the applicant contested the decisions of the Split Office and the Central Office of the Fund and argued that her condition had already been established before the death of her mother. In particular, that in the proceedings concerning her right to social welfare she was established with total inability to work on 27 August 2008. She further sought that the decisions of the Fund be annulled and that she be granted the survivor ’ s pension.

On 25 April 2013 the High Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s administrative claim. It found that the applicant ’ s general inability to work pursuant to the Pension Insurance Act was established only on 20 October 2009, that is, after the death of her mother. It further found irrelevant the establishing of the applicant ’ s condition in the proceedings concerning her right to social welfare. It did not provide any further reasons in this respect. It therefore found that the applicant was not entitled to receive the survivor ’ s pension.

In her constitutional complaint the applicant complained about the refusal of the administrative authorities and the High Administrative Court to grant her the survivor ’ s pension. She alleged, inter alia , violations of her right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 29 § 1 of the Constitution, and of the right to help in sustaining basic life needs guaranteed by Article 57 § 1 of the Constitution to persons who are unable to work.

On 28 May 2014 the Constitutional Court declared her constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. This decision was served on the applicant on 5 June 2014.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provision of the Pension Insurance Act ( Zakon o mirovinskom osiguranju , Official Gazette no. 102/98, with subsequent amendments), which was in force between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2013, reads as follows:

IV. Rights on the grounds of disability Section 34(2)

“(2) Disability also exists in case an insuree , due to changes in his health condition which cannot be treated, suffers a permanent loss of his ability to work (general inability to work).”

The relevant provision of the Rules on the composition and work of the expert bodies in the process of exercising social welfare rights and other rights under special regulations ( Pravilnik o sastavu i načinu rada tijela vještačenja u postupku ostvarivanja prava iz socijalne skrbi i drugih prava po posebnim propisima , Official Gazette no. 64/2002, with subsequent amendments), which was in force between 12 June 2002 and 8 July 2014, reads as follows:

Section 43 Total inability to work

“Total inability to work exists when due to the type, degree and severity of a physical or mental disability, or the type and severity of a psychological illness, a person is not capable of work adequate for sustaining basic life needs.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of a lack of fairness of the administrative proceedings in that the decisions of the domestic authorities dismissing her pension claim were arbitrary and lacked reasons with respect to the central issue of the case.

She further complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that the said decisions violated her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic authorities ’ decisions dismissing the applicant ’ s claim arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable? Did the domestic authorities provide sufficient reasons for holding that the applicant ’ s general inability to work had not been established before the death of her mother?

2. Did the applicant ’ s claim amount to possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.1? If so, did the domestic authorities ’ decisions dismissing the applicant ’ s claim amount to an interference with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions? If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?