Communicated on 18 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 66553/12 Miro ANTUNOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 5 September 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant, Mr Miro Antunović , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Sibinj . He is represented before the Court by Mr Javorko Novak, a lawyer practising in Slavonski Brod .

The applicant was a civil servant of the City of Slavonski Brod , in the Office for Public Relations and Protocol ( Grad Slavonski Brod , Ured za odnose s javnošću i protokol ). In 2007 he was suspended from civil service on account of being accused of severe breaches of official duties.

For the duration of suspension from civil service, notably from September 2007 till September 2008, the applicant was entitled to salary compensation in the amount of 60% of the salary remitted in the month prior to suspension from civil service.

On 5 September 2008 Osijek Civil Service Tribunal ( Službenički sud u Osijeku ) found the applicant guilty of severe breaches of official duties. It imposed on the applicant a pecuniary fine in the amount of 10% of the salary of the civil servant paid in the month in which said sanction is imposed.

On 14 October 2008, upon the applicant ’ s appeal, the Superior Civil Service Tribunal ( Viši službenički sud ) reversed the impugned decision and imposed a pecuniary fine in the amount of 5% of the salary.

The applicant than filed a request for reimbursement of the salaries withheld during the suspension period. He was of the opinion that by withholding 40% of his salary for a period of 12 months and imposing a pecuniary fine on him the administrative bodies had punished him twice.

The City of Slavonski Brod , the Office for Public Relations and Protocol, dismissed the applicant ’ s request on 17 November 2008.

The applicant than lodged an appeal which was dismissed as groundless by the same administrative body that brought the above-mentioned decision, notably the City of Slavonski Brod , the Office for Public Relations and Protocol. In its decision of 22 December 2008 it gave the instruction that the applicant had a right to lodge an administrative action against it.

The applicant lodged an administrative action in accordance with the appellate body ’ s instruction.

On 4 January 2012 the High Administrative Court ( Visoki upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ) declined its jurisdiction in the subject matter on the basis that an ordinary civil court ( redovni , općinski sud ) was the appropriate court to hear the applicant ’ s case and it declared the applicant ’ s action inadmissible.

The applicant ’ s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 5 July 2012 as manifestly ill-founded.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, that by declaring his action inadmissible, despite the fact that the O ffice for P ublic Relations and P rotocol of the City of Slavonski Brod had wrongly instructed him to resort to that remedy, the High Administrative Court had violated his right of access to court . In particular, he points out that according to the Supreme Court ’ s case-law, ordinary civil courts do not have jurisdiction over the disputes arising from the legally binding decisions of the administrative bodies. He also claims that even if he had lodged a civil action, it would have been time-barred because it took more than three years for the High Administrative Court to declare his administrative action inadmissible.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

W as the decision of the High Administrative Court to declare the applicant ’ s administrative action inadmissible, despite the fact that he had been wrongly instructed by the O ffice for P ublic Relations and P rotocol of the City of Slavonski Brod to resort to that remedy, in breach of his right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?