Communicated on 15 December 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 6718/13 Bojana VUKELIĆ against Croatia lodged on 27 December 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Bojana Vukelić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Zagreb. She is represented before the Court by Mr R. Pelicarić , a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant has been working as a research assistant at a research institute I.R.B. since 1977. On 6 February 2002 the applicant ’ s employer gave the applicant a “dismissal due to the worker ’ s wrongful conduct with an offer to conclude a new employment contract” ( otkaz ugovora o radu zbog skrivljenog pona š anja radnika s ponudom izmijenjenog ugovora ) for a lower-level position with a lower salary given that the applicant had failed to obtain a doctoral degree (PhD) in a prescribed deadline.

The applicant agreed to sign a new contract but at the same time she brought a civil action against her employer ’ s decision on termination of her previous contract. She also sought to return to her previous position, as well as salary arrears.

On 8 February 2007 the Zagreb Municipal Court ( Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu ) dismissed the applicant ’ s claim as unfounded .

Upon the applicant ’ s appeal, the Zagreb County Court ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ) upheld the first-instance judgement.

The applicant ’ s subsequent appeal on points of law ( revizija ) was declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 14 April 2010. It held that the applicant ’ s employment had not been actually terminated, given that she had concluded a new contract with the same employer, which gave rise to dismissal of her appeal on points of law as incompatible ratione materiae .

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) and on 5 July 2012 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention about the refusal of the Supreme Court to examine the merits of her appeal on points of law which has been in contradiction with its earlier case law.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the manner in which the Supreme Court applied the provisions of the Labour Act deprive the applicant of her right of access to the Supreme Court?