JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES WOJTYCZEK, POLAÄŒKOVA AND KTISTAKIS

1. We respectfully disagree with the majority’s views that the application is admissible and that Article 8 has been violated in the instant case.

2. The majority presents the gist of the case in the following way:

“45. As regards the applicability of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court observes at the outset that the direct reason for the revocation of the applicant’s licence to carry out vehicle inspections was his alleged falsification of the tractor’s vehicle inspection record, a consideration that was not related to any aspect of his private life (see paragraph 11 above). The Court thus considers it appropriate to follow a consequence ‑ based approach in the instant case (ibid., § 115).

46. In doing so, the Court has to examine whether the impugned measure had sufficiently serious negative consequences for the applicant’s private life – in particular as regards his “inner circle”, opportunities for him to establish and develop relationships with others, and his reputation (see paragraph 41 above). In this regard, it notes that the revocation of the applicant’s professional licence resulted in his dismissal from his employment and his inability to pursue his profession for a period of five years. According to the applicant, the foregoing caused him pecuniary damage and health problems and adversely affected his relations with other persons, including those of a professional nature.”

3. We note in this context that in his constitutional complaint, the applicant never, in fact, expressly relied on the right to respect for his private life protected both under Article 8 of the Convention and under Article 35 of the Croatian Constitution. He did, however, complain under Article 55 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to work, that he had been dismissed from work after 20 years of employment, left without a salary and other employment-related benefits and unable to find a new job (see paragraph 24). Although losing a job may have caused the situation that had threatened the applicant’s material well-being, the applicant has not provided any specific information or detail, let alone any evidence, about his financial difficulties. Nor did he show that he was unable to find another type of employment suitable to his profession as a car mechanic (see paragraph 5).

The applicant further argued before the Court that the impugned actions by the authorities had caused him health problems and had adversely affected his reputation and his relationships with other persons, including those of a professional nature. However, the applicant raised no such arguments before the Constitutional Court, nor did he provide either the Court or the Constitutional Court with any evidence in support of such complaints, such as medical documentation, for instance.

Finally, the applicant did not argue before the Constitutional Court that the impugned measure had encroached upon his reputation in such a way that it seriously affected his esteem among others, with the result that it had a serious impact on his interaction with society (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 124 and § 127, 25 September 2018).

In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant raised the relevant arguments before the domestic courts, thus providing them with the opportunity that is, in principle, intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention – to redress any violations alleged against them (compare and contrast Arps v. Croatia , no. 23444/12, § 20, 25 October 2016, and Mile Novaković v. Croatia , no. 73544/14, § 50, 17 December 2020).

Accordingly, the application should have been rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

4. Even assuming that the applicant did indeed exhaust the domestic remedies, we are not persuaded that the threshold for the applicability of Article 8 has been reached in the instant case. Measuring the applicant’s subjective perceptions against the objective background and assessing the material and non‑material impact of the sanction imposed on the basis of the evidence presented before the Court , it has to be concluded that it has not exceeded the severity threshold for an issue to be raised under Article 8 of the Convention.

5. We would like to underline that any dismissal from work has negative consequences for the persons concerned. Under the approach adopted by the majority, which considerably lowers the threshold of applicability of Article 8, almost any situation of dismissal from work will trigger the applicability of Article 8, transforming a large number of labour law disputes into litigation for the protection of private life.