Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/22457.02-en-20041125/view/
Timestamp: 2017-12-13 09:12:45
Document Index: 275458102

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 22457', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4']

DRAGICA BOZIC v. CROATIA
DRAGICA BOZIC v. CROATIA About Project
Application no. 22457/02
by Dragica BOŽIĆ
The applicant, Mrs Dragica Božić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1943 and lives in Sisak, Croatia. She is represented before the Court by Mrs M. Savić, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
On 27 September 1991 the Croatian Pension Fund, Sisak Office (Republički fond mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja, Područna služba u Sisku) (the Sisak Office) issued a decision granting the applicant right to a family (widower's) pension (obiteljska mirovina) after her late husband as of 6 August 1991. However, no payments were made until 1 August 1997.
On 18 September 1997 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in order to recover the pension instalments due.
On 14 June 1999 the Sisak Office dismissed her request. It found that the payment of family pension was stopped between 6 August 1991 and 31 July 1997 since during that period the applicant had resided in the occupied areas of Croatia and her address had been unknown. The applicant appealed.
On 19 June 2000 the Croatian Pension Fund, Central Office (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnja služba) (the Central Office) quashed the first-instance decision for factual shortcomings and remitted the case.
In the resumed proceedings, the Sisak Office dismissed the applicant's request on 9 October 2000. The applicant appealed.
On 9 April 2001 the Central Office again quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.
On 22 August 2001 the Sisak Office for the third time dismissed the applicant's request. The applicant appealed.
On 15 November 2001 the Central Office for the third time quashed the first-instance decision for factual shortcomings and remitted the case.
In the subsequent proceedings, the applicant filed an appeal for failure to respond (žalba zbog šutnje administracije) under the Administrative Procedure Act since the Sisak Office did not render a decision within the statutory time-limit of two months. Given that the Central Office also failed to decide on this appeal within the statutory time-limit of two months, on 17 December 2002 the applicant filed an action for failure to respond (tužba zbog šutnje administracije) with the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) under the Administrative Disputes Act. The applicant subsequently withdrew this action since in January 2003 the first-instance decision had been rendered.
On 29 January 2003 the Sisak Office partly accepted the applicant's request. It awarded her the pension instalments as of 1 October 1994 and dismissed her request for the instalments due prior to that date. The applicant appealed.
On 20 May 2003 the Central Office dismissed the applicant's appeal.
On 1 July 2003 the applicant filed an administrative action with the Administrative Court challenging this decision. The case is currently pending before that court.
On 14 January 1998 the applicant filed a civil action with the Sisak Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Sisku) seeking recovery of the pension instalments due.
On 26 March 1999 the Sisak Municipal Court declined its jurisdiction in the matter and transferred the case to the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).
On 30 March 2001 the Zagreb Municipal Court issued a decision inviting the applicant to correct some particulars of her action.
On 23 October 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court decided to stay the proceedings until the preliminary question of the applicant's entitlement to the pension and its amount would be finally decided in the proceedings under (1). The applicant appealed against that decision.
On 4 May 2004 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance decision to stay the proceedings, remitted the case and instructed the Zagreb Municipal Court to proceed with examining the merits of the case.
The relevant part of section 63 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court (Official Gazette no. 49/2002) (“the 2002 Constitutional Court Act”) – Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske iz 2002) reads as follows:
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the administrative proceedings have lasted an unreasonably long time.
2. She further complains, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, that she did not have an effective remedy at her disposal in respect of the length of the administrative proceedings.
3. The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings.
1. The applicant complains that the administrative proceedings have not been concluded within a “reasonable time” as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
2. The applicant also complains that she had no effective remedy in respect of the length of the administrative proceedings. She relies on Article 13, which reads as follows:
3. The applicant further complains that the length of the civil proceedings have exceeded a reasonable time, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Since the applicant did not avail herself of that remedy, it follows that this part of the application is inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaints concerning the length of the administrative proceedings and existence of an effective remedy in this regard;
DRAGICA BOŽIĆ v. CROATIA DECISION