Communicated on 24 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 29555/11 Stipan JURIŠIĆ against Croatia lodged on 28 April 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Stipan Jurišić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Split. He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Franceschi , a lawyer practising in Split.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant was a senior military officer holding the rank of brigadier.

On 7 June 2006 a criminal investigation was opened in respect of the applicant in the Split County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Splitu ) in connection with a suspicion of the abuse of power and authority.

On 28 September 2006 the competent military prosecutor indicted the applicant in the Split Military Disciplinary Court ( Vojnostegovni sud u Splitu ) on the grounds that the opening of the criminal investigation against him suggested that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence, which in itself amounted to a disciplinary offence.

On 13 October 2006 the Split Military Disciplinary Court found the applicant “guilty” of the fact that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence in respect of which the criminal proceedings had been instituted, and sentenced him to a reduction of rank.

On 30 January 2007 the Higher Military Disciplinary Court ( Vi š i vojnostegovni sud ), as the appellate court, upheld the applicant ’ s disciplinary conviction and dismissed him from the military service.

Meanwhile, the Split Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Op ć insko državno odvjetni š tvo u Splitu ) indicted the applicant in the Split Municipal Court ( Op ć inski sud u Splitu ) on charges of the abuse of power and authority.

On 13 May 2009 the Split Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office dropped all charges against the applicant and on the same day the Split Municipal Court dismissed the case.

Following the dismissal of charges against him in the criminal proceedings, the applicant sought before the Higher Military Disciplinary Court reopening and re-examination of his disciplinary conviction.

On 1 September 2009 the Higher Military Disciplinary Court dismissed the applicant ’ s request on the grounds that the dismissal of charges against him in the criminal proceedings could not lead to a reopening of the disciplinary case.

The applicant challenged this decision before the Administrative Court ( Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ) arguing, inter alia , that the decisions of the lower disciplinary bodies led to an unfair and unjustified restriction on his professional development.

On 10 March 2010 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaints as ill-founded upholding the decisions of the lower disciplinary bodies.

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) and on 28 October 2010 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible on the grounds that the matter did not concern a determination of the applicant ’ s rights and obligations.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provision of, at the time applicable, Military Service Act ( Zakon o slu ž bi u oru ž anim snagama Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette no. 33/2002 with further amendments) reads:

Section 58

“Disciplinary offences are:

...

-committing a criminal offence prosecuted ex officio , or the existence of a reasonable suspicion that such an offence has been committed, ... ”

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains about the adverse effects of his allegedly unreasonable and unjustified dismissal from military service to his private and professional life.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

2. If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 8 § 2?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

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