JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES HAJIYEV AND DEDOV

We regret that we cannot share the conclusion of the majority that there has been no violation of the Convention in the present case. The rule of law and legal certainty require that national law should be foreseeable and predictable, especially in a situation of uncertain legal status which is still to be confirmed by the authorities.

The Act on the Rights of Croatian Homeland War Veterans and their Family Members applied to individuals whose status was confirmed as falling within its scope and it did not take account of pending cases concerning recognition of the status of disabled war veteran, such as the case of the applicant ’ s father. She was therefore unable to apply for social benefit as the above status was recognised by the Croatian courts only in 2007, after the expiry of the time-limit for her application. The national courts refused to assess the applicant ’ s individual circumstances, so her right to a fair hearing was breached. Her right under domestic law remained purely theoretical, not practical and effective, as required by the rule of law.

We cannot accept the majority ’ s idea that the Act did not set out a requirement under which disabled veteran status was a precondition for claiming the status of family member of such (fallen) veterans and the relevant social benefit (see paragraph 48 of the judgment). The Act sought to support the families of those who died of illness “contracted in the defence of the sovereignty of the Republic of Croatia” (see section 3 of the Act). That characterisation was precisely the subject of the administrative proceedings concerning the status of the applicant ’ s father, which the State authorities had refused to recognise (see paragraph 9 of the judgment).