Communicated on 23 February 2016

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 75328/12 Georgi DŽABIROV against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 17 November 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Georgi Džabirov , is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Skopje.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 23 November 2005 a disability commission established that due to an illness the applicant had reduced capacity to work ( намалена работна способност). On 8 February 2006 the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (“the Fund”) issued an interim order under which the applicant was awarded a disability pension, the amount of which was calculated on the basis of his pension contributions over the course of more than 34 years. The applicant was entitled to receive a disability pension as of 1 January 2006.

From 1 July 2008 the applicant was employed on a part-time basis (that is to say, for working hours amounting to less than half-time employment). In view of that employment, on 17 July 2008 the Fund reduced his disability pension to 70% of the amount specified in the 2006 order. That decision was based on section 12 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act of 2006 (“the 2006 Act”, see “Relevant domestic law” below).

In December 2008 the new Pension and Disability Insurance Act of 2008 (“the 2008 Act”) entered into force (Official Gazette no. 161/2008, see “Relevant domestic law” below). On 17 March 2009 the Fund, relying on section 10 of the 2008 Act, discontinued the applicant ’ s disability pension, with effect from 1 January 2009 , which was when the 2008 Act entered into force.

The applicant challenged that decision, arguing that he had been employed while the 2006 Act had still been in force and that the amount of his disability pension should be calculated according to the provisions of that Act.

On 17 August 2009 a second-instance commission ruled against the applicant and upheld the Fund ’ s decision. It found that the 2008 Act did not contain any provision for retired persons who had been employed before that Act entered into force. In such circumstances, the Commission held that the 2008 Act did not stipulate any entitlement to disability pension in the event of employment.

Those decisions were upheld by the Administrative and Higher Administrative Courts by decisions of 2 December 2010 and 27 April 2012 respectively. The courts dismissed the applicant ’ s submission that the 2008 Act had had a retroactive effect and found that the applicant had not been deprived of his pension entitlement as such, but that the payment of his pension had instead been discontinued as of 1 January 2009, the date on which the 2008 Act had entered into force.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. Pension and Disability Insurance Act of 2006 (Official Gazette no. 70/2006, 6 June 2006)

Section 12 of the 2006 Act stipulated a reduction in the amount of a person ’ s pension in the case of employment as follows: in the case of full-time employment, the amount of pension was to be reduced to 30% what a person would otherwise have been entitled to; in the case of half-time employment, the amount of pension was to be reduced to 50%; and in the case of less than half-time employment, to 70%.

2. Pension and Disability Insurance Act of 2008 (Official Gazette no. 161/2008, 24 December 2008)

Section 10 of the 2008 Act provides that a person ’ s pension shall be suspended for as long as he or she is employed or is self-employed. The 2008 Act entered into force on 1 January 2009.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention about the suspension of his pension .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has the interference with the applicant ’ s entitlement to a disability pension been in compliance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Lakićević and Others v. Montenegro and Serbia , nos. 2 7458/06, 37205/06, 37207/06 and 33604/07, 13 December 2011)?