Communicated on 30 September 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 79821/12 Ana MARUŠIĆ against Croatia lodged on 20 November 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Ana Marušić , is a Croatian national who was born in 1962 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 is a professor at the University of Zagreb School of Medicine ( Sveu č ili š te u Zagrebu , Medicinski fakultet ). She is the co-author of a textbook on anatomy titled “ Anatomija č ovjeka ” [ Human Anatomy ].

On the basis of anonymous allegations of plagiarism, a Committee of the University of Zagreb School of Medicine opened an inquiry.

On 2 July 2007 the Committee found that the applicant had copied, without authorisation or the necessary references, parts of another book on anatomy published by an author from the United States. The Committee was composed of seven members, including M.K. and I.J., although the applicant had requested their exclusion from the case on the ground that she had previously accused them of plagiarism.

On 23 July 2007, on the basis of the Committee ’ s findings, the Dean of the School of Medicine instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in the Court for Integrity of the University of Zagreb School of Medicine ( Sud č asti Sveučilišta u Zagrebu , Medicinskog fakulteta ; hereinafter “the Disciplinary Court”).

At a hearing on 12 December 2007 the applicant was presented with the findings of an expert on the English language, suggesting that she had translated and copied parts of the text from another book on anatomy published in the United States. The applicant asked to be provided with a copy of these findings, and sought an adjournment of the hearing so she could study the evidence obtained.

The applicant ’ s request was dismissed, and on the same day the Disciplinary Court found her guilty of plagiarism and issued her with a public reprimand.

The applicant challenged this decision before a higher faculty committee, and on 29 January 2008 her complaints were dismissed as unfounded.

Meanwhile, on 28 January 2008 the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports ( Ministarstvo znanosti , obrazovanja i š porta ) found that changes in the relevant legislation meant that the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant had not been conducted before the appropriate bodies with competence to do so. It thus prohibited the enforcement of the decision on the applicant ’ s disciplinary responsibility.

However, this was ignored, and the reprimand against the applicant was published on the public noticeboard and the Internet site of the Unive rsity of Zagreb School of Medicine .

The applicant challenged the disciplinary proceedings before the Administrative Court ( Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ) for lack of fairness, and on 20 May 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed her complaints as ill-founded, on the ground that the proceedings as a whole had been fair.

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), reiterating her previous arguments.

On 6 June 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed her complaints as unfounded, endorsing the findings of the Administrative Court.

The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 5 July 2012.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the disciplinary proceedings against her as university professor on charges of plagiarism were unfair . She alleges in particular that the domestic disciplinary bodies were not established by law, and that the principle of equality of arms was not respected as regards the manner in which the evidence was obtained and used during the proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was A rticle 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case?

2 . If so, d id 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, (1) was she tried before a tribunal established by law; and (2 ) was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the way in which the evidence was obtained and used in the proceedings ?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents in the applicant ’ s case.