Communicated on 8 July 2020 Published on 27 July 2020

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 15655/19 Milena HRVATIN against Croatia lodged on 15 March 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant, a civil servant, was the director of a social care home for adults with mental disorders. An inspection carried out in 2010 established several irregularities in the functioning of the institution. The Ministry for Social Affairs ordered measures aimed at removing those irregularities. The applicant in her capacity of director brought an action for judicial review, challenging the Ministry ’ s decision and the findings of the inspection on factual and legal grounds. Meanwhile, the Ministry removed the applicant from her post and appointed a new director who withdrew the action for judicial review brought by the applicant. As a consequence, the proceedings were discontinued. The applicant unsuccessfully sought to reopen the proceedings as an interested party.

At the same time, the applicant also sought judicial review of the decision on her removal from post in a separate set of proceedings, challenging again the findings of the inspection which were the basis for her removal. The High Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim finding that the Ministry acted within its competence and refused to admit any evidence proposed by the applicant. It also refused to address the applicant ’ s complaints concerning the findings of the inspection as they were the subject of consideration in the above mentioned related set of proceedings where the final decision had been delivered.

The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that, in the proceedings concerning her removal from post, she had not had the benefit of a review by a judicial body with full jurisdiction, that the principle of equality of arms with regard to the admission of evidence had not been observed, that she had not been given an oral hearing and that the High Administrative Court ’ s decision had lacked reasoning .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Was the scope of the review exercised by the High Administrative Court sufficient to comply with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the specific circumstances of the applicant ’ s case?

(b) Were the proceedings complained of fair in view of the fact that the High Administrative Court refused to examine any evidence proposed by the applicant?

(c) Were there any exceptional circumstances which would justify dispensing with an oral hearing in the proceedings in question?

(d) Was the High Administrative Court ’ s judgment sufficiently reasoned as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?