Communicated on 28 June 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 44691/14 Jovan BUDIMIR against Croatia lodged on 10 June 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jovan Budimir, is a Croatian national of Serbian ethnic origin, who was born in 1951 and lives in Beli Manastir . He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Vukšić , a lawyer practising in Osijek.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. Background to the case

The applicant worked as a certified motor vehicle supervisor.

On 5 October 1998 he carried out a standard vehicle inspection on a tractor and tested its roadworthiness.

On 15 October 1998, ten days later, the tractor hit a police car because the braking system failed. An inspection was carried out at the scene of the accident and it was established that the tractor ’ s braking system was defective.

On 16 March 1999 the Ministry of Interior ( Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova ) adopted a decision withdrawing the applicant ’ s licence for carrying out vehicle inspections. The decision was considered final and he was immediately dismissed from work. At the same time, the Ministry of Interior lodged a criminal complaint against him for forgery of the vehicle inspection record.

On 22 April 1999 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint with the Administrative Court against the decision of 16 March 1999. He complained, inter alia , that the administrative body had refused to hear expert witness testimony in order to determine whether the braking system had been defective during the inspection on 5 October 1998, without providing any explanation for its refusal of that evidence.

On 8 July 1999 the applicant was charged in the Beli Manastir Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Belom Manastiru ) with forging the vehicle inspection record.

By a judgment of 23 May 2001 the Administrative Court quashed the decision of 16 March 1999, pointing to numerous procedural flaws. It remitted the case for fresh consideration.

On the same day the Beli Manastir Municipal Court acquitted the applicant. It based its findings on, inter alia , the expert witness testimony stating that the braking system in question could have become defective in the period between the standard vehicle inspection and the road accident.

On 29 August 2001, in a new set of administrative proceedings, the Ministry of Interior adopted a new decision with the same outcome. This time it based its decision on the opinion of an expert from the Ministry of Interior ’ s Forensic Centre ( Centar za kriminalistička vještačenja Ministarstva unutarnjih poslova ), that the braking system could not have become defective in the period between the standard vehicle inspection and the road accident.

On 4 December 2003, following an administrative complaint by the applicant, the Administrative Court quashed the decision of 29 August 2001, pointing to numerous procedural flaws, including the unresolved contradictions between the expert witness testimony in the criminal proceedings and the opinion of the expert from the Forensic Centre. It again remitted the case for fresh consideration.

On 10 May 2004, in a new set of proceedings, the Ministry of Interior reinstated the applicant ’ s licence. It based its findings on the expert witness testimony given in the criminal proceedings.

2. Civil proceedings for damages

On 21 September 2006 the applicant brought a civil action in the Osijek Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Osijeku ), seeking damages from the State under the State Administration Act ( Zakon o sustavu državne uprave ).

On 28 June 2007 it dismissed his claim as ill-founded.

On 11 September 2008, following an appeal by the applicant, the Osijek County Court ( Županijski sud u Osijeku ) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.

On 26 February 2009, in a new set of proceedings, the Osijek Municipal Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim. It held that the Ministry of Interior ’ s decisions were in accordance with the law.

By a judgment of 5 May 2011 the Osijek County Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance judgment.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ), but on 4 September 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed it as ill-founded. It held that the Ministry of Interior had not acted unlawfully because there had been reason to suspect that the applicant had tested the roadworthiness of a tractor that had not been roadworthy and that therefore the damage the applicant had sustained had not been caused by unlawful acts of the State.

He then lodged a constitutional complaint alleging, inter alia , that his right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed by Article 29 of the Croatian Constitution, had been violated. He also alleged that he had lost his job and income because of wrongful acts of the Ministry of Interior.

By a decision of 6 March 2014 the Constitutional Court declared the constitutional complaint by the applicant inadmissible on the grounds that the case raised no constitutional issue. On 17 March 2014 it served its decision on the applicant ’ s representative.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that he was not able to obtain any damages he sustained because of the Ministry of Interior ’ s unjust decision to revoke his licence for performing the duties of certified motor vehicle supervisor which resulted in his instant dismissal from work thus leaving him unemployed and with no income.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Is Article 8 applicable in the circumstances of the present case? If so, did the State fulfil its positive obligation to repair the damage caused by the national authorities ’ error?