CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 octobre 2023

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 November 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 18235/22 Aleksandar HINIĆ against Croatia lodged on 5 April 2022 communicated on 18 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the revocation of the applicant’s professional licence, and his consequent inability to work as a bodyguard for a period of some three years. The applicant worked as a private bodyguard and possessed a licence to practice, issued by the Ministry of the Interior in 2005. Following an incident in a nightclub on 13 April 2018, while he had been on duty, in June 2018 the police instituted minor offence proceedings against him for allegedly assaulting another person. In March 2019 the police revoked the applicant’s licence to work as a bodyguard because the minor offence proceedings against him had involved violent elements so that he no longer fulfilled the conditions to carry a weapon or, consequently, to work as a bodyguard. His challenge of the revocation decision was dismissed by the administrative courts and his subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 26 October 2021. Meanwhile, on 29 September 2021 the applicant was found not guilty of the minor offence in question. The applicant complains, under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, that the administrative courts failed to assess whether the automatic taking of his professional licence had disproportionately affected his right to work, as a result of which he had been prevented from working as a bodyguard for some three years. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (cf. Budimir v. Croatia , no. 44691/14, §§ 56-65, 16 December 2021)? How long was the applicant effectively prohibited from working as a bodyguard? Was he dismissed from work and when? Were there other tasks he could have or did perform during the period in which he had been deprived of his professional licence?