Communicated on 18 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 45611/13 Zdravko GREGURIĆ against Croatia lodged on 4 July 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Zdravko Gregurić , is a Croatian national who lives in Kutina . He is represented before the Court by Mr B. Posavčić , a lawyer practising in Kutina .

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant was employed in company C.N.S. Ltd. He concluded with his employer more consecutive fixed-duration contracts of employment, with respect to the same work, for a continuous period exceeding seven years and seven months.

On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil action before the Ivanić Grad Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Ivanić Gradu ) seeking the court to recognise that he had concluded an open-ended contract of employment, given that he had continued working for the employer after the expiration of the period of three years, as envisaged in the Labour Act.

On 6 May 2011 the Ivanić Grad Municipal Court declared the applicant ’ s action inadmissible as lodged out of the prescribed time-limit.

On 26 July 2011 the Velika Gorica County Court ( Županijski sud u Velikoj Gorici ) upheld the first-instance decision .

The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) with the Supreme Court which was dismissed as ill-founded on 25 September 2012.

The applicant ’ s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 6 May 2013 as manifestly ill-founded.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains, under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention, that h is right of access to court was violated when the domestic courts declared his civil action inadmissible as lodged out of time. In particular, he points out that the impugned decision of the Supreme Court was inconsistent with decision adopted by the same court in the case of his colleague concerning the same issue in which that court considered that when an employee wanted to determine that his work status had continued (as is the case in the applicant ’ s case), there was no time-limit for lodging such claim.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have access to court in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty contained in this provision complied with by the Supreme Court, which according to the applicant, applied different standards in respect of two identical claims?