CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 janvier 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 27 January 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 75581/13 Petar TRAVAŠ against Croatia lodged on 22 November 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Petar Travaš, is a Croatian national, who was born in   1975 and lives in Rijeka. He is represented before the Court by Ms   L.   Kušan, a lawyer practising in Ivanić Grad. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 1 September 2003 the applicant was employed as a layman teacher of ecclesiastical education in two state secondary schools in Opatija. The applicant later divorced his wife, whom he had married in a religious ceremony, before the civil authorities and married someone else in a civil ceremony. On 18 April 2006 the Rijeka Archdiocese ( Riječka Nadbiskupija ) informed the applicant that his civil marriage to another woman while still bound, in the eyes of the church, by the religious aspect of his marriage to his previous wife was contrary to Christian doctrine and disqualified him from carrying out his ecclesiastical teaching. On 31 August 2006 the Rijeka Archdiocese withdrew the applicant’s canonical mandate to teach religious education. On 8 September 2006 the applicant was dismissed from his teaching job in the two schools on the grounds that he could not be a teacher of ecclesiastical education without a canonical mandate. The applicant instituted proceedings in the Opatija Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Opatiji ) challenging the decisions on his dismissal. On 22 February 2007 the Opatija Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action on the grounds that, based on the 1997 Contract between the Holy See and Croatia on Education and Culture (Official Gazette 2/1997) and the relevant regulations under that Contract, the applicant could not teach ecclesiastical education without a canonical mandate. The judgment of the Opatija Municipal Court was upheld by the Rijeka County Court ( Županijski sud u Rijeci ) on 17 October 2007. The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) and a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) arguing that there had been an unjust interference with his private and family life as a result of the decisions on his dismissal. On 3 December 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as ill-founded, endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts. On 22 May 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint, finding that there had been no violation of his right to respect for his private and family life or any discrimination against him. The President of the Constitutional Court gave a dissenting opinion in which she argued, inter alia , that the relevant domestic law on which the applicant’s dismissal had been based did not meet the standard of quality required by the Constitution and the Convention. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 27 May 2013. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, that there has been an unfair interference with his private and family life. He also refers to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, complaining that he was discriminated against as a teacher of ecclesiastical education.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of his position as a teacher of ecclesiastical education, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8?