CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 septembre 2015

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }     Communicated on 8 September 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 79653/12 Vladimir MUIĆ against Croatia lodged on 27 October 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Vladimir Muić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Rešetari. He is represented before the Court by Mr   R.   Rođak, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was employed by the Z.B. company from Zagreb. On 14   February 2000 he was dismissed from his job and he registered with the Croatian Employment Bureau’s Regional Office in Slavonski Brod ( Hrvatski zavod za zapošljavanje, Područna služba Slavonski Brod, hereinafter “the Slavonski Brod Bureau”). The applicant brought a civil action in the Nova Gradiška Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Novoj Gradiški ) challenging his dismissal and seeking reinstatement and compensation for lost salary. At the same time the applicant’s employer lodged a counterclaim requesting, inter alia , that the courts establish a date for the termination of his employment. On 23 February 2007 the Nova Gradiška Municipal Court ruled, inter alia , that the applicant’s dismissal from work was unlawful and that his employment had never been terminated. On 15 February 2008 the Slavonski Brod County Court ( Županijski sud u Slavonskom Brodu ) reversed the first-instance judgment and decided that his employment had been terminated on 23 January 2007. The applicant received the judgment in March 2008. On 30 April 2008 the applicant lodged a request with the Slavonski Brod Bureau for unemployment benefit for the period from 23 January 2007. On 2 June 2008 the Slavonski Brod Bureau dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that it had been lodged outside the thirty-day time-limit from the termination of his employment on 23 January 2007. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Zagreb Central Service of the Croatian Employment Bureau ( Hrvatski zavod za zapošljavanje, Središnja služba Zagreb, Central Service, hereinafter “the Central Bureau”), contending in particular that he could only lodge his unemployment benefit request after receiving the Slavonski Brod County Court judgment in March 2008, which was when he found out about the date of the termination of his employment. On 15 October 2008 the Central Bureau, acting as a second-instance administrative body, dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded, upholding the decision of the Slavonski Brod Bureau. The applicant brought an administrative action before the Administrative Court ( Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ) challenging the decisions of the administrative authorities. On 20 January 2011 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action as unfounded and upheld the lower bodies’ decisions. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 4 April 2012. The Constitutional Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s representative on 9 May 2012. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic administrative authorities were excessively formalistic and deprived him of an effective determination of his request for unemployment benefit.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have access to a court in the determination of his request for unemployment benefit, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?