CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 14 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 57227/19 Slavica VUČKO against Croatia lodged on 23 October 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an employment dispute where the applicant was dismissed from her earlier job but at the same time offered a new employment contract with the same employer for a different job. After the first- and second-instance courts ruled against her, the applicant lodged both an ordinary and an extraordinary appeal on points of law in a single set of submissions entitled “extraordinary appeal on points of law”. The Supreme Court decided only on her extraordinary appeal on points of law by declaring it inadmissible. The applicant complained of this failure in her constitutional complaint, arguing that under the relevant law an ordinary appeal on points of law was always allowed in an employment dispute, but the Constitutional Court did not address that argument. The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about the failure of the Supreme Court to decide on her ordinary appeal on points of law against the lower courts’ judgments.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the Supreme Court fail to examine the applicant’s ordinary appeal on points of law lodged against the lower courts’ judgments (reference is made to the Supreme Court’s decisions nos. Revr 68/10-2 of 16 June 2010 and Revr 674/10-2 of 24 November 2010)? If so, was the applicant thereby deprived of her right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Omerović v. Croatia (no.   2) , no. 22980/09, § 44, 5 December 2013; Šimecki v. Croatia , no.   15253/10, § 45, 30 April 2014; and Kardoš v. Croatia , no. 25782/11, §   57, 26 April 2016)?