CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juin 2016

.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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 2 June 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 5917/16 Darinka VRBANIĆ against Croatia lodged on 18 January 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Darinka Vrbanić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Zagreb. 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 Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje ). On 27 March 2009 she was dismissed for alleged misconduct. On 26 May 2009 she instituted civil proceedings in the Zagreb Civil Municipal Court ( Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu ) challenging the decision to dismiss her. On 2 February 2010 the applicant and her former employer concluded a new permanent employment contract. Neither party has ever disputed its validity. However, on 18 October 2012, when the applicant returned to work after a prolonged period of sick leave, her employer did not allow her to continue working. She was verbally informed that the contract of 2 February 2010 had been concluded just as a formality and that her employment had been terminated on the expiry of the notice period, on 18 October 2012, in accordance with the dismissal decision of 27 March 2009. The applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Labour Court ( Općinski radni sud u Zagrebu ). She claimed that by not allowing her to continue working, her employer had breached her rights under the employment contract of 2 February 2010. The defendant disputed the claim, alleging that its intention had not been to conclude a new contract, but rather to regulate the applicant’s employment status during the notice period. On 28 March 2013 the Zagreb Municipal Labour Court awarded the applicant’s claim. It held that the employment contract concluded on 2   February 2010 contained all the basic elements required under the relevant provisions of the Labour Act. Moreover, the first-instance court found that the contract was legally binding in view of the fact that neither party had ever challenged its validity. Following an appeal by the defendant, on 9 October 2013 the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) – contrary to its own judgment and that of the Split County Court ( Županijski sud u Splitu) in an identical case concerning the applicant’s colleague – reversed the first-instant judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claim. It held that the contract of 2   February 2010 had been concluded just as a formality with a view to aligning the applicant’s employment status with the new systematisation of jobs during the notice period, that is to say it had no legal effect, and that the defendant had not violated the applicant’s employment rights by not allowing her to work. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Zagreb County Court’s judgment deprived her of her right to a fair hearing.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the Zagreb County Court provide sufficient reasons for its judgment? In particular, did its judgment of 9 October 2013 have a basis in domestic law?   3.     Has the principle of legal certainty been respected given that the Zagreb County Court departed from its own case-law? In particular, are there “profound and long-standing differences” in the case-law on the matter at issue (in view of the Zagreb County Court’s judgment no. Gžr-1103/11 of 14 May 2013 and the Split County Court’s judgment no. Gžp-1168/13 of 4   December 2013)? If so, does the domestic law provide a mechanism for overcoming these inconsistencies, and if so has that mechanism been applied and to what effect?