CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 octobre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s7C2088F3 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s382C212A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB813FB12 { width:198.97pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       SECOND SECTION                 CASE OF TRAVAŠ v. CROATIA   (Application no. 75581/13)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   4 October 2016     FINAL   30/01/2017   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Travaš v. Croatia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Işıl Karakaş, President,   Julia Laffranque,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Valeriu Griţco,   Ksenija Turković,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 September 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 75581/13) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Mr Petar Travaš (“the applicant”), on 22 November 2013. 2.     The applicant was represented before the Court, first by Ms L. Kušan, a lawyer practising in Ivanić-Grad, and subsequently by Ms N. Owens from the law firm Owens and Houška, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3.     Relying on Article 8, taken separately and together with Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that his dismissal from his job as a teacher of religious education had constituted an unjustified interference with the exercise of his right to private and family life. 4.     On 27 January 2014 the applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. 5.     In addition, third-party comments were received from the Alliance Defending Freedom (“ADF”) and the European Centre for Law and Justice (“ECLJ”) (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     The applicant’s situation, his employment and dismissal 6.     The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Rijeka. He is a professor of theology. As a professor of theology he was qualified to teach Catholic religious education and courses in ethics and culture, as provided under the relevant domestic law (see paragraph 36 below). 7.     On the basis of a proposal from the applicant’s local priest, the archbishop of the Rijeka Archdiocese ( Riječka Nadbiskupija ) issued the applicant with a canonical mandate ( missio canonica ) (no. 492/08-2002) authorising him to teach Catholic religious education. 8.     On 1 September 2003, following the intervention of the Catechetical Office of the Rijeka Archdiocese ( Katehetski ured riječke Nadbiskupije ), the applicant was offered, without having to undergo a public competition, a contract of employment of indefinite duration as a layman teacher of Catholic religious education in two State high schools in Opatija. 9.     The applicant’s appointment was based on the Agreement of 18   December 1996 between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs and the relevant complementary domestic regulations (see   paragraphs 32, 40-41, 43-44 below). He was thereby employed in the public service and remunerated by the State. 10.     At the time, the applicant was married to T.F. They had married in a religious ceremony on 14 December 2002 and their marriage had been recognised at the same time by the civil authorities, as provided for under the relevant domestic law (see paragraphs 33 and 38 below). 11.     The applicant’s subsequent divorce from T.F. was registered before the civil authorities, and in March 2006 he married another woman in a civil ceremony. 12.     On 18 April 2006 the Rijeka Archdiocese informed the applicant that his civil marriage to another woman while still bound, in the eyes of the Church, by the religious marriage to his previous wife was contrary to Christian doctrine and disqualified him from teaching religious education. The relevant part of the letter read: “It has been established that in March this year you concluded a civil marriage although you are still bound by the Sacrament of Matrimony to a third person. The local Catechetical Office of the Rijeka Archdiocese issued you a mandate to teach Catholic religious education in school. Each religious education teacher must demonstrate that he is ‘outstanding in true doctrine and the witness of a Christian life’ (Canon 804 § 2) and must participate in the sacramental and evangelical community of a parish. The new situation does not enable you to do this. You are therefore invited to explain in writing as soon as possible the manner in which your canonical situation can be harmonised with canonical mandate no. 492/08-2002 and then, by 28 April 2006, to come for a meeting in the Catechetical Office.” 13.     After obtaining the applicant’s explanation of his situation, on 31   August 2006 the Rijeka Archdiocese withdrew his canonical mandate to teach Catholic religious education. 14.     On the same day the Rijeka Archdiocese informed the two schools in which the applicant was employed of the new situation. The relevant part of the letter read: “We should inform you that on 31 August 2006 canonical mandate no. 492/08-2002 was withdrawn from the teacher of religious education, Petar Travaš. The canonical mandate was withdrawn under Article 3 § 2 of the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs (Official Gazette-International Contracts no. 2/1997) because of a breach of Canon Law (Canon 804 §   2). Petar Travaš explained his situation in writing.” 15.     On 8 September 2006, relying on section 106 § 1(2) of the Labour Act (regular termination of an employment contract), the schools dismissed the applicant from his teaching job on the grounds that he could no longer be a teacher of Catholic religious education without a canonical mandate. They stressed that it had been impossible to find another position for the applicant or to offer him an alternative post within the schools. The applicant was given two months’ notice and the right to an indemnity. B.     Judicial proceedings 16.     On 13 October 2006 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Opatija Municipal Court ( Općinski sud u Opatiji ), challenging the decisions on his dismissal. 17.     On 22 February 2007 the Opatija Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action on the grounds that as stipulated in the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia and the related Agreement between the Government of Croatia and the Croatian Episcopal Conference on Catholic religious education in State schools and pre-school institutions, he could not teach Catholic religious education without a canonical mandate. The Opatija Municipal Court also found that the schools had examined the possibility of appointing the applicant to another suitable post, but that as there was no such post, they had justifiably terminated his contract of employment. 18.     The applicant challenged the judgment of the Opatija Municipal Court by lodging an appeal before the Rijeka County Court ( Županijski sud u Rijeci ). He argued that he had not breached the Labour Act or any other relevant legislation and that the Agreement between the Government of Croatia and the Croatian Episcopal Conference did not require that a person whose canonical mandate had been withdrawn should be dismissed. 19.     On 17 October 2007 the Rijeka County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, endorsing the findings and reasoning of the Opatija Municipal Court. 20.     On 18 and 19 February 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) and a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) respectively. He relied, inter alia , on Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, and the corresponding provisions of the Constitution, arguing that there had been an unjust interference with his private and family life as a result of the decisions on his dismissal, and that his dismissal had been of a discriminatory nature. He contended, in particular, that the conclusion of a second marriage contract in a civil ceremony could not be a reason for dismissal under the Labour Act or any other State laws. He therefore considered that his dismissal based on the fact that he had divorced his former wife and remarried in a civil ceremony had disproportionately affected his private life. 21.     On 3 December 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as unfounded, endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts. In particular, the Supreme Court stressed that the applicant’s dismissal had been based on the withdrawal of his canonical mandate, which was a necessary requirement for employment as a teacher of Catholic religious education as provided for under the relevant domestic law. The Supreme Court also held that it was not for the schools or the courts to enter into the examination of the reasons for the withdrawal of the applicant’s canonical mandate by the Church. 22.     On 7 February 2009 the applicant supplemented his constitutional complaint by extending his arguments to the judgment of the Supreme Court. He contended in particular that the Supreme Court’s refusal to examine the reasons for his dismissal had essentially deprived him of the possibility to have those reasons effectively challenged in court. 23.     A public hearing was held and on 22 May 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint, finding that there had been no violation of his right to respect for his private and family life, or any discrimination against him. The relevant part of the decision reads: “10.1.2. It follows from the available material and the [appellant’s] constitutional complaint that the appellant’s first marriage had been concluded in a religious ceremony before an official of the religious community and that [the appellant] was divorced on the basis of a final court decision as provided for under the relevant Croatian law. The Constitutional Court notes that the appellant subsequently concluded a new marriage in a civil ceremony without any restriction imposed by the State. It follows that the State did not inhibit his determination to remarry, nor did it prevent him from remarrying and founding a new family. Accordingly, the appellant’s right to marry under Article 12 of the Convention and his constitutional right to respect for his family life under Article 35 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the Convention has not been breached. ...   10.2.2. ... [T[he Constitutional Court starts by observing that the Republic of Croatia and the Holy See concluded an Agreement on education and cultural affairs, signed in Zagreb on 18 December 1996. The Act ratifying that Agreement came into force on 11 February 1997 and thereby this international treaty became part of the internal legal order of the Republic of Croatia with precedence in terms of its legal effects over the [domestic] statutes. By this Agreement the Republic of Croatia undertook certain obligations which must be abided by and respected. Primarily, it undertook to secure Catholic religious education in all State elementary and high schools and all pre-school institutions as a mandatory class for all those who have chosen that course, under the same conditions applicable to other mandatory classes. [The Agreement] stipulates that Catholic religious education will be taught by qualified religious education teachers who are suitable for that position, in the opinion of the Church authorities, and meet the requisite legal requirements of the Croatian legislation. It also stipulates that teachers of religious education must hold a canonical mandate ( missio canonica ) issued by the diocesan bishop, and that withdrawal of the mandate leads to an immediate loss of the right to teach Catholic religious education. Under the Agreement, teachers of religious education are members, together with their pupils, of the educational corps ... The Republic of Croatia undertook to regulate the programme and functioning of Catholic religious education in schools of all types and levels by a special agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the Croatian Episcopal Conference. The Constitutional Court considers it necessary to note at this point that the appellant is wrong when he argues that the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs does not require a canonical mandate as a condition for employment and that such a requirement only flows from the Agreement between the Government of Croatia and the Croatian Episcopal Conference on Catholic religious education in State schools and pre-school institutions of 29 January 1999. The appellant specifically contends that the Agreement between the Government [of the Republic of Croatia] and the Croatian Episcopal Conference is a bilateral agreement which ‘is not a statute and does not have the status of an international treaty’ and thus could not be binding for [him and the State] nor could it be applied to [his] case, as was done by the [lower] courts. Although the appellant relies on an erroneous premise that the canonical mandate, as a condition for employment as a teacher of religious education, has been stipulated (only) by the Agreement between the Government [of the Republic of Croatia] and the Croatian Episcopal Conference, it could be held that in essence he considers that the consequences of the withdrawal of the canonical mandate on his contract of employment, and his position of teacher of religious education, are contrary to the Constitution. The Constitutional Court reiterates that the requirement to hold a canonical mandate in order to teach religious education, and the consequences of its withdrawal (loss of the right to teach Catholic religious education), are provided for under Article 3 of the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs. ... 10.2.3. The Constitutional Court considers it necessary to examine the special requirement stipulated by the Vatican agreements for employment as a teacher of religious education – the canonical mandate. The Constitutional Court firstly notes that the Government of the Republic of Croatia have so far concluded seven agreements on questions of mutual interest with different religious communities, in particular with: - the Serbian Orthodox Church in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 163/03); - the Islamic community in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 196/03); - the Evangelical Church in Croatia and the Christian Reformed Church in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 196/03); - the Evangelical (Pentecostal) Church in Croatia, the Christian Adventist Church in Croatia and the Baptist Union of Croatia (Official Gazette no. 196/03); - the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in Croatia, the Croatian Old Catholic Church and the Macedonian Orthodox Church in Croatia (Official Gazette nos. 196/03 and 141/04); - the Jewish community Bet Israel in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 4/12); and - the Coordination of Jewish townships in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 4/12). All these agreements have been concluded under the Act on the Legal Status of Religious Communities (Official Gazette no. 83/02) and they all contain identical provisions concerning, for example, mandatory religious education classes for those who have chosen them, the teaching of these courses under the same conditions as other mandatory courses, and the necessity for teachers of religious education to hold the requisite mandate to teach religious education, which can always be withdrawn ‘for reasons of deficiencies related to the correctness of teaching and personal morality’. Such a requirement, given the nature of their job and its proximity with the mission of dissemination of the church’s teaching, in the Constitutional Court’s view, is not an excessive burden for persons who have chosen to become teachers of religious education. The assessment of a person’s adequacy [to teach religious education] by the competent church authorities is a concretisation of the freedom of the church’s activity and the right to religious freedom, which [also] includes the right of parents to a religious education of their children. 10.2.4. The enforcement of the obligation undertaken by an international agreement, namely the organisation of Catholic religious education in State elementary and high schools and pre-school education institutions, as provided for under the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs and the Agreement between the Government of Croatia and the Croatian Episcopal Conference, brought religious education teachers into the employment system of the Republic of Croatia. Although their employment status is not fully defined by these Agreements, the provisions of the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs in themselves show that the employment status of religious education teachers is a sui generis employment status – in order to teach religious education they must be suitable for that position in the opinion of the Church authorities; they must hold a canonical mandate and the withdrawal of the mandate leads to the loss of the right to teach Catholic religious education. At the public hearing – on the basis of evidence given by the Director of the Administration for legal affairs of the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport of the Republic of Croatia S.S.B., it has been undoubtedly established that the employment of all teachers of religious education was conducted without an open competition, although that has not been provided for under the relevant law. It was only [later], after the public hearing, by section 12 of the amendments to the Act on Tuition and Education in Elementary and High Schools (Official Gazette no. 90/11) that a new section 107 § 10(6) was introduced, which provides that a contract of employment without an open competition may be concluded for the position of religious education teacher. In June 2000 the Ministry of Education and Sport forwarded to all county offices for education, culture, information, sport and technical culture a letter concerning the employment status of religious education teachers in elementary and high schools; more precisely, concerning their hiring and dismissal. The letter indicates that a contract of employment is to be concluded with religious education teachers meeting the relevant requirements, and that if the diocesan bishop by means of a decree withdraws the canonical mandate to teach Catholic religious education from a religious education teacher due to deficiencies related to the correctness of the teaching and personal morality, the contract of employment is to be terminated under section 107 of the Labour Act as an extraordinary dismissal. 10.2.5. It therefore follows that the appellant also entered the State education system without participating in an open competition. At the public hearing he stated that, on the basis of the local priest’s recommendation the bishop had given him the mandate, the Ordinary had acted as an intermediary, and the school had given him the employment. Thus, by having the canonical mandate and meeting all other requirements, the appellant and the defendants concluded a ‘classical’ contract of employment under the Labour Act, which does not mention the canonical mandate or the consequences of its possible withdrawal. At the public hearing, when asked whether he had been aware of the consequences of his conduct on the right to teach religious education, the appellant stated that he had passed the exam in canon law which he could not have passed without learning [also the issues] concerning those consequences. It follows that the appellant knew that his position depended on the mandate given by the diocesan bishop and that he would lose it if the mandate were withdrawn. Accordingly, although he had concluded a ‘classical’ employment contract under the Labour Act, the appellant could not have expected, after he had lost the canonical mandate as a consequence of entering into a new civil marriage while he was still in a ‘religious’ marriage with a third person, that he would be able to continue to teach religious education. However, he could have expected, irrespective of the internal instructions of the Minister, that the schools where he was employed would take all necessary measures to employ him in another post. This is because the withdrawal of the canonical mandate leads to the loss of the right to teach Catholic religious education and not dismissal or the loss of his degree in theology. Under section 2 of the By-law on the educational level and pedagogical-psychological education of teachers in high schools (Official Gazette nos. 1/86 and 80/99), a degree in theology [opens the possibility] of teaching courses in ethics and culture. According to the findings of the first-instance court, the defendants had examined the possibility of employing the appellant in another post but, as such a post had not existed, they terminated his contract of employment by so-called regular dismissal, which gives rise to the right to a notice period and an indemnity. In so doing, the defendants acted in the usual manner for terminating a contract of employment by so-called regular dismissal. The Constitutional Court therefore finds that the appellant has not been treated differently from other workers, including employees in schools, in the situation of a termination of a contract of employment by so-called regular dismissal. The assessment of the lawfulness of the termination of the appellant’s contract of employment was, in the light of the relevant labour law, conducted by the [competent] courts at three levels of jurisdiction. In view of the fact that for the position of teacher of religious education there is a further special requirement, without which it is impossible to conclude a contract of employment (a canonical mandate), and having found that the appellant, due to the withdrawal of [the canonical mandate] no longer met the requirements for teaching Catholic religious education, and the fact that the defendants had tried to find him another post ..., the [competent] courts, in the Constitutional Court’s view, applied a constitutionally acceptable interpretation according to which the appellant’s contract of employment had been terminated in accordance with the relevant law. 10.2.6. Against the above background, in view of the defendants’ conduct following the withdrawal of the appellant’s canonical mandate and in view of the manner in which the competent courts provided him with judicial protection in terms of the State’s obligations under the Vatican agreements, the Constitutional Court finds that the appellant has been afforded sufficient protection of his [employment rights].” 24.     Judge D.K. appended a concurring opinion to the decision, agreeing with the findings of the majority. However, he argued that the Constitutional Court had not sufficiently appreciated the fact that the applicant had voluntarily consented to his position depending on the canonical mandate, which the diocesan bishop was authorised to issue and to withdraw. 25.     The President of the Constitutional Court gave a dissenting opinion in which she argued, in particular, that the normative framework for the employment of teachers of religious education, based on the Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs, had not been implemented sufficiently precisely in the relevant domestic employment system, which had left a number of issues undetermined. 26.     The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 27 May 2013. C.     Other relevant facts 27.     In March 2010 T.F. applied to the Rijeka First-instance Inter-diocesan Matrimony Court ( Interdijecezanski ženidbeni sud prvog stupnja u Rijeci ) for the annulment of her religious marriage to the applicant on the grounds that, when entering into the marriage, he had demonstrated “a positive act of the will excluding marriage itself” (see paragraph 45 below, canon 1101 § 2). 28.     On 16 August 2012 the Rijeka First-instance Inter-diocesan Matrimony Court accepted T.F.’s application and annulled her religious marriage to the applicant. The decision was then forwarded for examination to the Zagreb Inter-diocesan Appeal Court ( Međubiskupijski prizivni sud u Zagrebu ). 29.     The proceedings were held in the applicant’s absence because he had failed to respond to the court’s summons. During the proceedings, an email sent by the applicant to T.F. on 4 December 2009 was admitted as evidence. In the email the applicant stated that if he “could return all other sacraments [he] would gladly do it. This way, if [he] managed to get rid of only one, which, as [they] both knew, never existed, [his] heart would be happier.” 30.     On the basis of the evidence adduced, on 24 April 2013 the Zagreb Inter-diocesan Appeal Court upheld the decision of the Rijeka First-instance Inter-diocesan Matrimony Court annulling the applicant’s religious marriage to T.F. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC MATERIAL A.     Relevant domestic law 1 .     Constitution 31.     The relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette nos. 56/1990, 135/1997, 8/1998, 113/2000, 124/2000, 28/2001, 41/2001, 55/2001, 76/2010, 85/2010 and 5/2014) read as follows: Article 14 “Everyone in the Republic of Croatia shall enjoy rights and freedoms regardless of their race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other belief, national or social origin, property, birth, education, social status or other characteristics. All shall be equal before the law.” Article 35 “Everyone has a right to respect for and legal protection of his private and family life, dignity, reputation and honour.” Article 40 “Freedom of conscience and religion and freedom to profess faith or other belief publicly shall be guaranteed.” Article 41 “All religious communities shall be equal before the law and shall be separate from the State. Religious communities shall be free, in accordance with the law, to perform religious services publicly, to open schools, educational and other institutions, social-welfare and charitable institutions and to administer them, and in their activities to enjoy the protection and assistance of the State.” Article 54 “Everyone has the right to work and freedom of work. Everyone shall be free to choose his or her vocation and occupation, and shall have access to any workplace and post under equal conditions.”   Article 140 “International agreements in force, which were concluded and ratified in accordance with the Constitution and made public, shall be part of the internal legal order of the Republic of Croatia and shall have precedence in terms of their legal effects over the [domestic] statutes. ...” 2 .     Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs 32.     The relevant provisions of the Agreement of 18 December 1996 between the Holy See and Croatia on education and cultural affairs ( Ugovor između Svete Stolice i Republike Hrvatske o suradnji na području odgoja i kulture , Official Gazette-International Contracts no. 2/1997), ratified on 24   January 1997 and published in the Official Gazette on 11 February 1997, read: Article 1 “The Republic of Croatia, in view of the principle of religious freedom, respects the fundamental right of parents to religious education of their children. It undertakes to ensure that Catholic religious education is available within the curriculum and in accordance with the wish of the parents or guardians of all State elementary and high schools and pre-school education institutions as a mandatory course for all those who choose it under the same conditions as those applicable to other mandatory courses. ...” Article 2 “Respecting freedom of conscience and the responsibility of parents for the upbringing of their children, everyone shall have the right to choose religious education. The education authorities, in cooperation with the competent Church authorities, shall ensure that parents and adult students are able to choose religious education at the time of enrolment in school in a manner excluding any discrimination in education. ...” Article 3 “Catholic religious education shall be taught by qualified religious education teachers who are, in the opinion of the Church authorities, suitable [for that position] and who meet the requisite legal requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Croatia, respecting all duties and rights flowing from it.   Teachers of religious education must hold a canonical mandate ( missio canonica ) issued by the diocesan bishop. Withdrawal of the mandate leads to the immediate loss of the right to teach Catholic religious education.   Teachers of religious education are members, together with their pupils, of the educational corps ... The curriculum and functioning of Catholic religious education in schools of all types and levels shall be regulated by special agreements between the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the Croatian Episcopal Conference.” 3 .     Agreement between the Holy See and Croatia on legal affairs 33.     The Agreement of 18 December 1996 between the Holy See and Croatia on legal affairs ( Ugovor između Svete Stolice i Republike Hrvatske o pravnim pitanjima , Official Gazette-International Contracts no. 3/1997), was ratified on 7 February 1997 and published in the Official Gazette on 25   February 1997. The relevant part of the Agreement provides: Article 13 “(1) A religious marriage shall have the same effects as a civil [marriage] under the law of the Republic of Croatia, provided that the [spouses] do not have other civilian restrictions [preventing them from marrying] and that other conditions under the laws of the Republic of Croatia have been met. ...   (4) The decisions of the Church’s courts concerning the annulment of a marriage and the decisions of the High Church authority on the dissolution of a marital union shall be forwarded to the competent State court in order to adopt a decision on the civil effects of [the annulment or dissolution] in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Croatia.” 4 .     Legal Status of Religious Communities Act 34.     The relevant provisions of the Legal Status of Religious Communities Act ( Zakon o pravnom položaju vjerskih zajednica , Official Gazette no. 83/2002) read: Section 2 “Religious communities are autonomous and free to regulate their internal affairs... [relationships concerning] bodies and persons who represent the religious community and its organisational entities ... in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia.” Section 9 “(1) Issues of common interest for the Republic of Croatia and one or more religious communities may also be regulated by an agreement made between the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the religious community. (2) With a view to implementing [legal] instruments regulating relations between the State and religious communities, as well as other issues of interest for the status and operation of religious communities, the Government of the Republic of Croatia shall establish a Commission for Relations with Religious Communities.” Section 13 “(2) In elementary schools and high schools, at the request of parents or guardians of pupils younger than 15 years and on the basis of a joint declaration by students of 15 years of age or above and their parents or guardians, a religious education course shall be organised as an optional course in accordance with the prescribed curriculum and an agreement between the religious community and the Government of the Republic of Croatia. (3) Religious education in pre-school education institutions and elementary and high schools shall be taught by persons meeting the requirements provided for in the regulations and contracts referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section.” 5 .     Labour Act 35.     At the material time the relevant part of the Labour Act ( Zakon o radu , Official Gazette nos. 38/1995, 54/1995, 65/1995, 102/1998, 17/2001, 82/2001. 114/2003, 123/2003, 142/2003, 30/2004 and 68/2005) provided: Regular termination of an employment contract Section 106 “(1) An employer may terminate an employment contract, observing the prescribed or stipulated notice period (regular termination of an employment contract) if he or she has justified reason for doing so: ... - if the employee is unable to duly perform the assignments of his or her post due to certain permanent changes in his personal circumstances or loss of skills (dismissal for reasons of personal circumstances); ...” Section 107 “(1) The employer and the employee have justified grounds for terminating the employment contract concluded for a definite or indefinite duration, without observing the prescribed or stipulated notice period (extraordinary dismissal), if, due to a particularly grave breach of the employee’s duties or some other particularly serious incident, with due regard to all the circumstances and the interests of the contracting parties, the continuation of the employment is no longer possible. ...” 6 .     By-law on the educational level and pedagogical-psychological education of teachers in high schools 36.     Section 2 of the By-law on the educational level and pedagogical-psychological education of teachers in high schools ( Pravilnik o stručnoj spremi i pedagoško-psihološkom obrazovanju nastavnika u srednjem školstvu , Official Gazette nos. 1/96 and 80/99) provides that professors of theology may teach courses in ethics or ethics and culture. 7 .     Intermediation in Employment and Unemployment Rights Act 37.     Sections 30 to 42 of the Intermediation in Employment and Unemployment Rights Act ( Zakon o posredovanju pri zapošljavanju i pravima za vrijeme nezaposlenosti , Official Gazette no. 32/2002, with further amendments) provide for the right to claim unemployment benefit in cases of regular termination of an employment contract, including instances provided for under section 106 § 1 (2) of the Labour Act, where the employee has worked for at least nine months in the preceding period of twenty-four months. 8.     Family Act 38.     The relevant provisions of the Family Act ( Obiteljski zakon , Official Gazette no. 116/2003, with further amendments) read as follows: Section 6 “Marriage shall be celebrated ... in a civil or a religious ceremony.” Section 8 “A religious marriage ceremony with the effects of a civil marriage shall be performed by a minister of a religious community with which the Republic of Croatia has regulated the legal issues in this respect.” Section 23 “In accordance with the provisions of section 8 ... of this Act a marriage celebrated in a religious ceremony shall, from the date on which it is celebrated, have all the effects of a civil marriage as prescribed by this Act.” Section 34 “(1) Irrespective of the form in which it was contracted, a marriage ceases upon: the death of a spouse, the pronouncement that a missing spouse is deceased, annulment or divorce.” 9.     Prevention of Discrimination Act 39.     The relevant provisions of the Prevention of Discrimination Act ( Zakon o suzbijanju diskriminacije , Official Gazette no. 85/2008), which entered into force on 1 January 2009, provide: Section 16 “Anyone who considers that, owing to discrimination, any of his or her rights has been violated may seek protection of that right in proceedings in which the determination of that right is the main issue, and may also seek protection in separate proceedings under section 17 of this Act.” Section 17 “(1) A person who claims that he or she has been a victim of discrimination in accordance with the provisions of this Act may bring a claim and seek: 1. a ruling that the defendant has violated the plaintiff’s right to equal treatment or that an act or omission by the defendant may lead to the violation of the plaintiff’s right to equal treatment (claim for an acknowledgment of discrimination); 2. a ban on [the defendant’s] undertaking acts which violate or may violate the plaintiff’s right to equal treatment or an order for measures aimed at removing the discrimination or its consequences to be taken (claim for a ban or for removal of discrimination); 3. compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the violation of the rights protected by this Act (claim for damages); 4. an order for a judgment finding a violation of the right to equal treatment to be published in the media at the defendant’s expense.” B.     Other relevant domestic material 40.     On 29 January 1999, referring to the Agreement of 18 December 1996 between Croatia and the Holy See on education and cultural affairs, the Government of the Republic of Croatia and the Croatian Episcopal Conference concluded the Agreement on Catholic religious education in State schools and pre-school education institutions ( Ugovor između Vlade Republike Hrvatske i Hrvatske biskupske konferencije o katoličkom vjeronauku u javnim školama i vjerskom odgoju u javnim predškolskim ustanovama ). 41.     This Agreement was not published in the Official Gazette but it is available on the Internet site of the Croatian Episcopal Conference ( www.hbk.hr ). The relevant provision of the Agreement reads:   Section 5 “(1) Catholic religious education shall be taught by persons to whom the diocesan bishop has issued a canonical mandate ( missio canonica ) and who meet the requisite legal requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Croatia. (2) When the relevant educational and Church authorities find that there is a need [for Catholic religious education], the diocesan bishop shall appoint an appropriate person to teach religious education. (3) The canonical mandate ( missio canonica ) to teach religious education shall remain effective until withdrawn by the diocesan bishop. (4) The diocesan bishop has the right to withdraw by means of a decree the canonical mandate ( missio canonica ) to teach religious education for reasons of deficiencies related to the correctness of teaching and personal morality.” 42.     The Government of the Republic of Croatia concluded agreements to the same effect with: (1) the Serbian Orthodox Church in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 163/2003); (2) the Islamic community in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 196/2003); (4) the Evangelical Church in Croatia and the Christian Reformed Church in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 196/2003); (4)   the Evangelical (Pentecostal) Church in Croatia, the Christian Adventist Church in Croatia and the Baptist Union of Croatia (Official Gazette no.   196/2003); (5) the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in Croatia, the Croatian Old Catholic Church and the Macedonian Orthodox Church in Croatia (Official Gazette nos. 196/03 and 141/2004); (6) the Jewish community Bet Israel in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 4/2012); and (7) the Coordination of the Jewish townships in Croatia (Official Gazette no. 4/2012). 43.     On 15 June 2000 the Ministry of Education and Sport ( Ministarstvo prosvjete i športa ; hereinafter “the Ministry”) instructed the offices for the administration of education at county level on the procedure concerning hiring and dismissal of teachers of Catholic religious education. 44.     According to the Ministry’s instructions, if a diocesan bishop issues a written decision appointing a person to teach religious education by giving him or her a canonical mandate, the director of the school must offer a contract of employment of indefinite duration to the person at issue. If, however, the diocesan bishop withdraws the canonical mandate for reasons of “deficiencies related to the correctness of teaching and personal morality”, the teacher must be dismissed under the procedure for extraordinary dismissal. III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE MATERIAL A.     Code of Canon Law 45.     The relevant canons of the Code of Canon Law, promulgated on 25   January 1983, provide as follows: Canon 804 “... § 2. The Ordinary [of the diocese] shall be careful that those who are appointed as teachers of religion in schools, even in non-Catholic ones, are outstanding in true doctrine, in the witness of their Christian life, and in their teaching ability.” Canon 805 “The Ordinary [of the diocese] has the right to appoint or approve teachers of religion and, if religious or moral considerations so require, the right to remove them or to demand that they be removed.” Canon 1055 “§1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. ...” Canon 1056 “The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.” Canon 1101 “§1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage. §2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.” B.     Relevant EU and comparative law 46.     For the relevant EU law and for a comparative overview of religious education, both denominational and non-denominational, in State schools in Council of Europe Member States, see Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no.   56030/07, § 67, ECHR 2014 (extracts). THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 47.     The applicant complained about his dismissal from his job as a teacher of Catholic religious education, alleging that it had breached his right to respect for his private and family life. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” A.     Admissibility 1.     The parties’ arguments (a)     The Government 48.     The Government contended that Article 8 of the Convention was not applicable in the present case, arguing that the reasons for the applicant’s dismissal from his job of religious education teacher were not pertinent to his private or family life. The Government pointed out that, when dismissing the applicant from his post, the schools had not examined any circumstances of his private and family life but had based their dismissal decision on purely formal grounds, namely the withdrawal of the applicant’s canonical mandate. At the same time, the schools had had no knowledge of the reasons for the withdrawal of the applicant’s canonical mandate; nor had it been for the schools to examine the reasons for the Church’s decision. 49.     The Government pointed out that the necessity for a teacher of Catholic religious education to hold a canonical mandate was clearly established under the Agreement of 18 December 1996 between Croatia and the Holy See on education and cultural affairs, which had been duly published in the Official Gazette and thus been accessible to the applicant. Moreover, during the proceedings before the Constitutional Court the applicant had stated that he had been aware of the consequences of withdrawal of the canonical mandate. This suggested, in the Government’s view, that the applicant was wrong to argue that he had lost his teaching position for reasons pertaining to the circumstances of his private or family life, whereas it was clear that the sole reason for his dismissal had been the withdrawal of his canonical mandate. (b)     The applicant 50.     Relying on the Court’s findings in the Fernández Martínez case (cited above), the applicant submitted that it clearly followed from the Court’s case-law that Article 8 of the Convention was applicable as the relevant aspects of his professional life, related to his dismissal, had also affected his private and family life. 2.     The Court’s assessment 51.     The Court notes at the outset that in the circumstances of the present case Article 8 is relevant in so far as it encompasses the applicant’s right to continue his professional life, his right to respect for his family life and his right to live his family life in a manner which he considers appropriate (compare Fernández Martínez , cited above, § 108). 52.     Although no general right to employment can be derived from Article 8, the Court has previously had occasion to address the question of the applicability of Article   8 to the sphere of employment. It thus reiterates that “private life” is a broad term that is not susceptible to an exhaustive definition (see, among other authorities, Schüth v. Germany , no. 1620/03, §   53, ECHR 2010). It would be too restrictive to limit the notion of “private life” to an “inner circle” in which the individual may live his own personal life as he chooses, and to exclude therefrom