Communicated on 8 September 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 64184/13 Mirko LOVRIĆ against Croatia lodged on 14 August 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mirko Lovrić , is a Croatian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Privlaka . He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Gloković , a lawyer practising in Županja .

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant, who served as a soldier in the Croatian Defence Council ( Hrvatsko vijeće obrane ) during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, was injured in 1992 as a result of shelling while he was, on the basis of a command from his superior, constructing a shelter on the front line of combat operations. He was injured by flying fragments from the construction that had been damaged by the shelling.

On the basis of the applicant ’ s injuries, in 2006 a medical commission in Bosnia and Herzegovina accorded him the status of disabled war veteran.

The applicant then applied for recognition of his status in Croatia. He relied on Article 1(7) of the International Agreement between the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina on the Rights of Persons Harmed in the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina who were members of the Croatian Defence Council and their family members ( Ugovor između Republike Hrvatske i Bosne i Hercegovine o suradnji na području prava stradalnika rata u Bosni i Hercegovini koji su bili pripadnici Hrvatskog vijeća obrane i članova njihovih obitelji – hereinafter, the “Agreement”), which stipulated that the Republic of Croatia would grant pensions to soldiers of the Croatian Defence Council who had Croatian citizenship and had been wounded in Bosnia and Herzegovina .

On 28 November 2008 the Vara ž din Office of the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje , Podru č na slu ž ba u Vara ž dinu ) dismissed the applicant ’ s request, finding that he did not meet the requirements under Article 1(7) of the Agreement . It provided no further reasoning in respect of the matter.

The applicant challenged this decision before the Central Office of the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje , Sredi š nja slu ž ba – hereinafter, the “Central Office”) and on 18 February 2010 the Central Office dismissed his appeal. It found that the applicant had been injured during the war while performing his duties constructing a shelter o n the fr on t line of combat operations and that he had been granted the status of disabled war veteran in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, it held that the applicant had been injured while performing his military duties ( povrije đ en na vojnoj du ž nosti ) and had not been wounded ( ranjavanje ) in action, and therefore considered that he could not be granted a pension . The Central Office provided no further reasoning on the distinction between injuries sustained while performing military duties and wounds sustained during warfare .

The applicant lodged an administrative action against that decision in the High Administrative Court ( Visoki upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ), and on 23 January 2013 the High Administrative Court dismissed it, endorsing the findings of the Central Office. It did not elaborate on the matter any further.

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint challenging those findings before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), and on 6 May 2013 the Constitutional Court declared his constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains , under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention , that the domestic authorities assessed the relevant circumstances of his case in an arbitrary manner.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the decisions of the domestic authorities dismissing the applicant ’ s pension claim arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, taking into account the lack of reasons?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicant ’ s case.