CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 7 June 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 21664/16 Sonja ANGJELKOVIKJ against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 13 April 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the system of calculation and payment of salary whereby travel allowance (to and from the working place) was incorporated in the net salary, the latter being subsequently taken into consideration for the calculation of the pension basis ( пензиска озновица ). The applicant, who did not meet the statutory requirement to obtain that allowance (because her residence was less than 2 km from her place of work), unsuccessfully claimed that, inter alia , she had been discriminated against in the enjoyment of her pension rights compared to her colleagues with equal qualifications who, given their residence (more than 2 km from the place of work), had obtained the travel allowance and were entitled accordingly to higher pension basis. Two court levels ( РО-469/14 and РОЖ-1462/14 ) found inconclusive an opinion by the Ombudsman addressed to the applicant’s employer (a State-owned company) and a decision by the Constitutional Court ( U.br.61/2009 of 25 November 2009, declaring relevant Government decree unconstitutional) according to which such a system had entailed different treatment of employees with equal qualifications in the enjoyment of their rights to pension and salary solely on the basis of their residence, namely distance from their place of work. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination based on her residence, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention? In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment in the enjoyment of her pension rights? If so, was that difference in treatment in accordance with law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to pension, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of that Article?