FIRST SECTION

Application no. 61763/13 Alen KOVAČEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 12 September 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Alen Kovačević , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Zagreb . He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Žurić , a lawyer practising in Zagreb .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 1 April 2008 the applicant was employed as a salesman in company I.

His employment was termin ated o n 15 May 2008 on the grounds that he had not satisfied the requirements of his probationary period.

On 26 June 2008 t he applicant lodged a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court ( Op ć inski gra đ anski sud u Zagrebu ) arguing that the real reason for his dismissal had been the overall financial austerity with in the company and not his professional performance, and that therefore his dismissal had been unlawful because it had not been based on the reasons adduced by the company.

On 6 November 2009 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court dismissed the applicant ’ s civil action. It declined to examine his arguments on the grounds that he was allowed to challenge the dismissal only in relation to the reasons given by the employer for terminating his employment. It therefore rejected the applicant ’ s request to examine the evidence concerning his complaints and upheld the decision on his dismissal.

The applicant appealed to the Zagreb County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Zagrebu ) reiterating his previous arguments. On 13 April 2010 the Zagreb County Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision, which the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) dismissed as ill-founded on 18 September 2012.

On an unspecified date in 2012 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the lower courts ’ decisions. On 28 February 2013 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) declared it inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, that he did not have access to a court competent to examine all the factual and legal issues relevant to his employment dispute.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have access to a court competent to examine all the factual and legal issues relevant to his labour dispute , as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. D id the applicant have at his disposal an effec tive domestic remedy for his complaints , as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

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