4.  The applicant, who is of Serbian origin, was born in 1950 and lives in Innsbruck, Austria. 5.  On 29 July 1987 the Sisak Regional Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Područna služba u Sisku – “the Regional Office”), after finding that due to her illness the applicant’s ability to work had been reduced (smanjena sposobnost za rad), issued a decision awarding her the right to reduced working hours (pravo na rad s polovicom radnog vremena). On 15 October 1987 she was also awarded compensation for the loss of salary resulting from the reduced working hours (pravo na naknadu osobnog dohotka zbog rada sa skraćenim radnim vremenom). 6.  The applicant had been receiving this compensation until September 1991 when she was forced to quit her job and leave Petrinja as the town was taken by the occupying forces. She settled in Zagreb as an internally displaced person. 7.  The applicant submitted that she had instituted administrative proceedings before the Regional Office with a view that the payment of compensation for her reduced ability to work be resumed, by making a request to that end on 17 October 1991. The Government submitted that the applicant had done so only on 12 June 1995. 8.  On 20 September 1995 the Regional Office decided to discontinue the administrative proceedings instituted by the applicant’s request. 9.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 29 January 1996 the Central Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnja služba – “the Central Office”) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Office. 10.  In the fresh first-instance proceedings, on 28 June 1999 the Regional Office issued a decision abolishing the applicant’s right to compensation for reduced ability to work as of 21 September 1991. The applicant appealed. 11.  On 29 October 1999 the Central Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision. 12.  On 7 December 1999 the applicant brought an action in Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) contesting the second-instance decision. 13.  On 14 November 2002 the Administrative Court quashed the Central Office’s decision of 29 October 1999 for incomplete facts. 14.  In the fresh appellate proceedings, on 6 February 2003 the Central Office quashed the first-instance decision of 28 June 1999 and remitted the case to the Regional Office. 15.  In the fresh first-instance proceedings, on 23 July 2003 the Regional Office restored the applicant’s right to compensation for reduced ability to work and decided that its payment should be resumed as of 1 July 1995. On 18 August 2003 the applicant appealed, arguing that she should also be paid the outstanding instalments of compensation for reduced ability to work in the period before 1 July 1995. 16.  On 6 May 2004 the Central Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision of 23 July 2003. 17.  On 29 June 2004 the applicant brought her second action in the Administrative Court challenging the second-instance decision of 6 May 2004. 18.  On 25 January 2007 the Administrative Court again quashed the contested decision for incomplete facts. 19.  In the fresh appellate proceedings, on 17 May 2007 the Central Office quashed the first-instance decision of 23 July 2003 and remitted the case to the Regional Office. 20.  In the fresh first-instance proceedings, on 4 September 2007 the Regional Office adopted a new decision and dismissed the applicant’s request for payment of compensation for reduced ability to work in the period prior to 1 July 1995. The applicant appealed on 10 October 2007. 21.  On 29 November 2007 the Central Office quashed the first-instance decision of 4 September 2007 and remitted the case to the Regional Office. 22.  As in the fresh first-instance proceedings the Regional Office did not issue a new decision within the statutory time-limit of sixty days, on 4 March 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal for failure to respond (žalba zbog šutnje administracije) with the Central Office. 23.  On 13 May 2008 the Central Office allowed the applicant’s appeal for failure to respond of 4 March 2008 and ordered the Regional Office to issue a decision in her case within thirty days. 24.  On 16 July 2008 the Regional Office issued a decision dismissing again the applicant’s request for payment of compensation for the period prior to 1 July 1995. The applicant appealed on 12 August 2008. 25.  On 1 October 2008 the Central Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision of 16 July 2008. 26.  On 1 December 2008 the applicant brought another action in the Administrative Court. She contested the decision of the Central Office of 1 October 2008. 27.  On 10 June 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action. 28.  On 19 August 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the Administrative Court’s judgment. 29.  On 16 March 2011 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the applicant’s constitutional complaint. It found that the applicant had not substantiated her complaint by any constitutional law arguments but had merely repeated the arguments raised in the proceedings before the Croatian Pension Fund and the Administrative Court. Therefore, the Constitutional Court had been unable to examine the merits of her constitutional complaint.