CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 6 September 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 963/18 Vladimir ŠPLAJT against Croatia lodged on 30 December 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal from work on account of his statements to the media, as well as the fairness and the length of the subsequent civil proceedings whereby he sought to be reinstated. In particular, the applicant, who is a lawyer by education, worked for the company U. where he was in charge of receiving employees’ complaints against the company as their employer. In 2007 he was dismissed for disclosing certain information perceived as damaging for the company’s reputation, namely, the information suggesting that the company treated its employees badly and did not respect labour laws. The applicant’s subsequent civil action for wrongful dismissal was dismissed by the domestic courts. The applicant complains under Article 10 about the violation of his freedom of expression and under Article 6 § 1 that the domestic courts lacked impartiality because the daughter of the president of the second-instance court was an employee of the company U. and the court president himself had been working there in the past. Under the latter Article the applicant also complains of the excessive length of the proceedings.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s dismissal in violation of his freedom of expression and thus contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?   2.     Was the daughter of the president of the Osijek County Court employed with the company U. at the relevant time and had the court president himself been in the past an employee of that company? If so, was that court, which on 22   November 2012 adopted the judgment in the applicant’s disfavour, impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?