CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 25 mai 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA0390550 { width:31.21pt; display:inline-block } .s2F5FF95F { width:240.15pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .sD49C56F { width:262.16pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } FOURTH SECTION   PARTIAL DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 50912/99 by Mirko KISIĆ against Croatia     The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 May 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   G. Ress, President ,   Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo,   Mr   V. Butkevych,   Mrs   N. Vajić,   Mr   J. Hedigan,   Mr   M. Pellonpää,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova , judges , [Note1] and   Mr   V. Berger, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced on 19 May 1999 and registered on 14 September 1999,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant is a Croatian citizen, born in 1923 and living in Zagreb (Croatia).     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     The applicant served in the Yugoslav People’s Army and in 1972 he retired from service. His military pension was assessed according to his rank and years of service and was paid from the Federal Pension Fund. The payments terminated in December 1991, following the dissolution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The applicant alleges that the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia agreed on 8 October 1991 in Mohacz (Hungary) that the pensions of former Yugoslav people’s Army officers who decided to stay in Croatia would be paid by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until 31 December 1991, and from then on by the Republic of Croatia, in full amount.     Two separate proceedings took place, in respect of the decrease of the applicant’s military pension.     Firstly, on 12 December 1992, the Croatian Social Security Fund, Zagreb Office, assessed the applicant’s pension, as from 1 October 1992, at 63,22 % of the amount he had received until December 1991. The applicant appealed against that decision and after his appeal was dismissed, instituted administrative proceedings with the Administrative Court, which dismissed the applicant’s claim on 16 September 1993. The applicant failed to lodge a constitutional complaint against that decision.     On 18 October 1993 the Croatian Parliament passed a law on the regulation of pensions of the former Yugoslav People’s Army officers that, among other provisions, reiterated that the amount of the former Yugoslav Army officers’ pension shall be 63,22 % of what they had received in December 1991.     Secondly, the applicant instituted proceedings with the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of the new law.     On 20 January 1999 the Constitutional Court terminated the proceedings due to the enactment of new legislation that regulates pension rights of all Croatian citizens, including the former Yugoslav Army officers.     COMPLAINTS     The applicant firstly complains that the reduction of his pension violates Articles 3, 5, 14, 17, 30 and 56 of the Convention.     He also complains that such a decision violates his right to property, thus raising in substance a claim under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     Finally, the applicant complains, without specifying any provision of the Convention, that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his claim.     THE LAW     The applicant’s complaints relate to two separate proceedings.   1.   Firstly, the applicant makes complaints in regard to the proceedings concerning the reduction of his military pension under Articles 3, 5, 14, 17, 30 and 56 of the Convention. He further claims that the reduction of his pension as from 1   October   1992 to 63,22 % of the amount that he had received until December 1991 violates his right to property, thus, in substance, invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     The Court notes that the final decision in the proceedings concerning the decrease of the applicant’s pension was that of the Administrative Court on 16 September 1993 and that the applicant failed to lodge a constitutional complaint against that decision. The Court also notes that the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997, and that, therefore, this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.   2.   Secondly, the applicant complains in regard to the proceedings concerning the constitutionality of the laws serving as the basis for the decrease in the applicant’s pension. In this respect, he alleges that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his claim on the merits. He fails to specify any provision of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint may raise an issue of the right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the right of access to court, and, that it is, therefore, necessary, in accordance with Rule   54 §   3   (b) [Note2] of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaint that he was deprived of the right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.         Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President           [Note1]   Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.) [Note2]   Change as necessary.