CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDDFF39D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } Communicated on 31 March 2016   SECOND SECTION Applications nos 50564/14 and 54356/14 Milan GRIZELJ against Croatia and Ivica SPREICER against Croatia lodged on 9 July 2014 and 25 July 2014 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant in the first case (application no. 50564/14) is Mr Milan Grizelj, who was born in 1957 and lives in Dugi Rat.   He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Fabjanović, a lawyer practising in Split. The applicant in the second case (application no. 54356/14) is Mr Ivica Spreicer, who was born in 1958 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Čaržavec, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. Both applicants are Croatian nationals. The circumstances of the cases On different dates both applicants brought civil actions against their employers, seeking to have decisions dismissing them from work declared null and void. The domestic courts, after several sets of proceedings, lasting twelve years in the Grizelj case and eight years in the Spreicer case, adopted final decisions declaring their civil actions inadmissible as being lodged out of time. The domestic courts held that the statutory limitation periods ran from the date on which the applicants had been orally informed of their dismissals and not from the date on which the decisions had been served on them. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain, under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention, that their right of access to court was violated when the national courts declared their civil actions inadmissible as being lodged out of time.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have access to a court in respect of their civil actions challenging the decisions on their dismissal from work, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the manner in which the national courts applied the provisions of the Labour Act as regards the procedural requirements for bringing a claim before a court deprive the applicants of access to court?