Communicated on 29 June 2015
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 57242/13
Damir BELOŠEVIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 9 August 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Damir Belošević, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1961 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 in the company Z.F. from Zagreb. On 26 April 2005, upon his return from sick leave, the applicant was served with his employment book (radna knjižica) and a copy of the notice of cancellation from the mandatory pension and health insurance scheme as of 20 March 2005. However, he was not served with a written notice of dismissal or any reasons for termination of his employment, as required under the rules of the Labour Act.
On 2 May 2005 the applicant lodged a request to be entered in the records of the Croatian Employment Bureau, Regional Office in Zagreb (Hrvatski zavod za zapošljavanje, Područni ured Zagreb). He also lodged a request for the unemployment benefit.
On 5 May 2005 the Croatian Employment Bureau, Regional Office in Zagreb, asked the applicant to provide reasons for his dismissal.
In the meantime, on 18 May 2005, the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking that his dismissal from work be declared null and void. He also asked for an interim measure ordering his employer to return him to work until the conclusion of these proceedings.
On 1 July 2005 the applicant informed the Croatian Employment Bureau, Regional Office in Zagreb, that he had been dismissed from work while he had been on a sick leave and that he had never been served with a written notice of dismissal and that therefore he was not able to provide the required evidence. He also submitted copies of all the documents in relation to his dismissal from work that he possessed, including the labour inspection’s report in which it was established that the applicant’s employer had committed a series of violations of the rules of the Labour Act, the Health Insurance Act, as well as the Pension Act, in connection with the applicant’s termination of employment.
On 8 July 2005 the Croatian Employment Bureau, Regional Office in Zagreb, asked the applicant again to provide reasons for his dismissal.
On 18 July 2005 the Zagreb Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued a decision on interim measure.
On 29 August 2005 the applicant was returned to work.
On 19 September 2005 the applicant informed again the Croatian Employment Bureau, Regional Office in Zagreb, that he had not been served with a written notice of dismissal and that therefore he was not able to provide the required evidence. He again submitted copies of all the documents he possessed, including the decision of the Zagreb Municipal Court of 18 July 2005.
On 31 October 2005 the applicant was served with the decision of the Croatian Employment Bureau, Regional Office in Zagreb of 4 August 2005, by which that body dismissed the applicant’s request of 2 May 2005 because he had failed to provide the required evidence concerning the reasons for his dismissal from work, as well as the explanation for this failure.
The applicant lodged an appeal with the Zagreb Central Service of the Croatian Employment Bureau (Hrvatski zavod za zapošljavanje, Središnja služba Zagreb) which that body dismissed as unfounded on 8 December 2005.
The applicant then brought an administrative action and on 27 January 2010 the Administrative Court dismissed his administrative action as unfounded and upheld the administrative bodies’ decisions.
The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 14 February 2013.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic authorities imposed on him an impossible burden of proof and acted in excessive formalism when dismissing his request for an unemployment benefit.
He also complains that an excessive burden was placed on him so that he was unable to obtain the unemployment benefit to which he was clearly entitled.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant’s right to a fair hearing, owing to excessive formalism of the national authorities, violated, contrary to the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy