Communicated on 31 March 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 73544/14 Mile NOVAKOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 17 November 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mile Novaković , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Darda . He is represented before the Court by Ms B. Paprić , 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.

The applicant worked as a teacher of specialised technical courses at a public high school in Darda . He is of Serbian ethnic origin and studied in Serbia, but started working as a teacher in Croatia in 1971. He was employed at the high school in Darda on the basis of a contract of indefinite duration from 1 July 1998 onwards.

In November and December 1998, on the basis of an anonymous complaint alleging that the applicant was not using standard Croatian when teaching, an education inspector attended his classes. The supervision was also carried out in respect of three other teachers of Serbian origin who worked at the high school in question. No teacher of Croatian origin was subject to supervision.

In a report of 4 December 1998 the education inspector found that the applicant and another teacher had not been using standard Croatian in their courses, whereas two other teachers had been complying with that requirement.

On the basis of those findings, on 7 December 1998 the applicant was prohibited from teaching at the school. That decision was challenged in administrative proceedings, and the Administrative Court ( Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ) set it aside on the grounds that the issue of whether it was possible to teach classes at the school in question in one of the minority languages or only in standard Croatian had not been conclusively established.

Meanwhile, relying on the findings of the education inspector, on 29 March 1999 the school dismissed the applicant from his teaching position on the grounds that it could not be expected that he, as a fifty-five-year-old person, would be able to master the Croatian language with sufficient proficiency so as to be able to teach at the school, and there was no other suitable position at the school for his level of expertise and qualifications.

On 6 May 1999 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Beli Manastir Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Belom Manastiru ), challenging the decision on his dismissal as unfounded in all respects.

On 10 March 2008 the Beli Manastir Municipal Court dismissed the applicant ’ s civil action, upholding the reasons for his dismissal relied upon by the school.

The applicant challenged that judgment by lodging an appeal before the Osijek County Court ( Županijski sud u Osijeku ), which on 29 January 2009 dismissed his appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.

The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ), which on 13 July 2010 dismissed his appeal on points of law as unfounded.

On 31 January 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), complaining of the arbitrariness of his dismissal and discrimination in that respect.

On 6 June 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint, on the grounds that there was no doubt that the applicant, like any other teacher in Croatia, was required to teach courses in standard Croatian, and that his inability to do so had led to his legitimate dismissal. The Constitutional Court therefore did not see any arbitrariness in the decision to dismiss the applicant, nor any discrimination in that respect.

The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 3 July 2014.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he was arbitrarily dismissed from his teaching post, and that he was discriminated against in that respect on the grounds of his age and Serbian ethnic origin.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did he raise his Article 8 complaint in substance before the Constitutional Court?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life in relation to his dismissal, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?

3. Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the grounds of his age and ethnic origin in relation to his dismissal, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention?

4. Has the applicant suffered discrimination contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12?

The Government are requested to provide copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicant ’ s case.