Communicated on 6 January 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 9440/12 Zlatko GODLER against Croatia lodged on 24 January 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Zlatko Godler , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Ms G. Vodopivec , a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Civil proceedings concerning the labour dispute

The applicant was an employee of T.D.K.S., an association that operated in Croatia.

On 30 June 1986 he was dismissed from work due to alleged misconduct.

The applicant challenged his dismissal before the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Zagrebu ). On 16 March 1995 that court annulled the above-mentioned decision on the applicant ’ s dismissal as unlawful and ordered his reinstatement.

On 22 December 1996 the judgment of 16 March 1995 became final.

On 27 December 1996 the applicant applied for the enforcement of the Zagreb Municipal Court ’ s judgment, seeking his reinstatement and salary arrears.

On 27 January 1997 the Zagreb Municipal Court issued an enforcement order as requested by the applicant. The applicant ’ s employer failed to comply with the enforcement order.

2. Proceedings before the Ministry of Justice, Administration and Local Government Administration

In 1999 the applicant reported his employer ’ s conduct to the Ministry of Justice, Administration and Local Government Administration ( Ministarstvo pravosuđa , uprave i lokalne samouprave ; hereinafter “the Ministry”).

On 8 March 1999 the Ministry informed the applicant that T.D.K.S. had failed to comply with the provisions of the Law on Associations. Therefore it instituted on its own motion proceedings to strike T.D.K.S. off the register of associations.

On 26 March 1999 the Ministry adopted a decision on the dissolution of T.D.K.S.

On 24 June 1999 the Ministry informed the applicant about its decision of 26 March 1999.

On 20 September 1999 the Ministry enforced its decision on the dissolution of T.D.K.S.

On 9 November 1999, after the decision of 20 September 1999 became final, the Ministry instituted insolvency proceedings against T.D.K.S. before the Zagreb Commercial Court ( Trgovački sud u Zagrebu ).

On 27 December 1999 the applicant also instituted insolvency proceedings against his employer.

The Zagreb Commercial Court joined the above-mentioned proceedings and on 27 September 2000 adopted a decision to start the insolvency proceedings against T.D.K.S.

On 9 January 2001 the High Commercial Court upheld the decision of 27 September 2000.

3 . Proceedings before the Croatian Unemployment Bureau

Meanwhile, on 15 June 1999 the applicant lodged a request to be recorded as an unemployed person with the Zagreb office of the Croatian Unemployment Bureau ( Hrvatski zavod za zapošljavanje , Područna služba u Zagrebu , hereinafter “the Zagreb Employment Bureau”) and to be granted unemployment benefit, as provided for in the relevant domestic law.

The Zagreb Employment Bureau registered the applicant as an unemployed person as of 15 July 1999.

However, on 2 August 1999 the Zagreb Unemployment Bureau dismissed an application for unemployment benefit by the applicant. It held that the applicant had been dismissed from work on 30 June 1986 and that his application for unemployment benefit had been lodged outside of the thirty-day time-limit.

On 21 September 1999 the central office of the Croatian Unemployment Bureau ( Hrvatski zavod za zapošljavanje , Središnja služba , hereinafter “the Central Unemployment Bureau”), acting as the second-instance administrative body, dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance administrative decision.

On 2 April 2003 the Administrative Court adopted a judgment by which it quashed the second-instance decision and ordered a fresh examination of the case. It instructed the administrative bodies to determine the exact date on which the applicant ’ s employment had been terminated.

On 29 January 2004 the Central Unemployment Bureau stayed the proceedings until the administrative proceedings concerning the determination of the exact date on which the applicant ’ s employment had been terminated and entry of his years of service into his employment record pending before the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje ) were concluded.

On 13 June 2007 the Central Unemployment Bureau dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against the Zagreb Unemployment Bureau ’ s decision of 2 August 1999. Given that on 12 February 2007 the Croatian Pension Fund had adopted a decision in which it had established that the applicant ’ s employment had been terminated on 27 September 2000 and that the applicant had lodged his claim for unemployment benefit on 15 July 1999, the Central Unemployment Bureau concluded that the applicant ’ s request had been premature, specifically that it had been lodged more than one year before the termination of his employment.

On 10 July 2007 the applicant lodged an administrative action before the Administrative Court. He argued that by ignoring the final judgment of the Zagreb Municipal Court (by which his dismissal from work had been annulled), and by being unable to determine the exact date of the termination of his employment for seven years, the Croatian Pension Fund and the Croatian Unemployment Bureau had created a situation in which it was impossible for him to obtain the unemployment benefit to which he was entitled. Moreover, he had been recorded in the register of the Zagreb Unemployment Bureau as an unemployed person from 15 July 1999; if he had known that he had not had that status, he would have lodged a new application for unemployment benefit each time an individual authority adopted a new decision concerning his status.

On 27 October 2010 the Administrative Court rejected his claim as ill-founded and upheld the administrative bodies ’ decisions.

On 5 October 2011 the Constitutional Court declared a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant inadmissible on the grounds that there was “no constitutional issue” to be examined.

The applicant ’ s representative was served with the Constitutional Court ’ s decision on 19 October 2011.

4 . Proceedings before the Croatian Pension Fund

On 29 January 1997 Zagreb office of the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje , Područna služba u Zagrebu , hereinafter “the Zagreb Pension Fund”) adopted a decision recognising the applicant ’ s years of service as dating from 1 July 1986 onward.

On 22 July 1997 the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje , Središnja služba , hereinafter “the Central Pension Fund”) quashed the Zagreb Pension Fund ’ s decision on its own motion.

Upon an appeal by the applicant, the Administrative Court quashed the Central Pension Fund ’ s decision on 2 February 2000 and upheld the Zagreb Pension Fund ’ s decision of 29 January 1997.

On 19 June 2000 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings seeking to have the Zagreb Pension Fund register his years of service between 1 July 1986 and 20 September 1999 on his employment record.

On 28 July 2000 the Zagreb Pension Fund established that the applicant ’ s employment at T.D.K.S. had terminated on 30 September 1993 and stated that it recognised the period between 1 July 1986 and 30 September 1993 as his years of service at T.D.K.S.

Upon an appeal by the applicant, on 27 November 2000 the Central Office of the Central Pension Fund, acting as the second-instance administrative body, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case for a fresh examination.

On 3 October 2001 the Zagreb Pension Fund adopted a new decision in which it established that the applicant ’ s employment at T.D.K.S. had been terminated on 1 July 1986. At the same time it dismissed his application to have the period between 1 July 1986 and 20 September 1999 registered as his years of service at T.D.K.S.

On 9 November 2001 the Central Pension Fund upheld the decision of 3 October 2001.

The applicant then lodged an administrative action with the Administrative Court.

On 28 September 2006 the Administrative Court accepted the applicant ’ s claim and quashed the Central Pension Fund ’ s decision. The relevant part of this decision reads as follows:

“In a situation where, despite all the legal steps taken by the employee, the employer ignores its obligation stemming from a final decision adopted by a court of law, insisting on proving the existence of the period of employment would make it impossible for the employee to have his rights realised , and it would amount to a circumvention of one ’ s rights and obligations. It should also be noted that the employer sought to have the claimant removed from the pension insurance scheme as and from the opening day of bankruptcy proceedings, and that the administrative bodies ’ actions prevented the employer from fulfilling his legal obligations ...”

In a fresh round of proceedings, on 18 January 2007, the Central Pension Fund accepted the applicant ’ s appeal and quashed the Zagreb Pension Fund decision of 3 October 2001.

On 12 February 2007 the Zagreb Pension Fund adopted a decision by which it recognised the period between 1 July 1986 and 27 September 2000 as the applicant ’ s years of service at T.D.K.S. That decision became final on 26 March 2007.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the State authorities violated his right to a fair hearing in that they declined his application for unemployment benefit in a very formalistic manner.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the State authorities ’ refusal to grant the applicant unemployment benefit amount to an interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions?

2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was it foreseeable for the applicant that his application for unemployment benefit would be dismissed as premature?

3. If so, was the interference in question in the public interest and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?