CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 16 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 29497/22 Vedran BROZ against Croatia lodged on 7 June 2022 communicated on 27 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegation of the applicant that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his disability. The applicant was a police officer. In 2016 the competent authority established that he was entitled to a disability pension due to his incapacity to continue performing the duties of a police officer as a result of an injury. That decision stated that the applicant was able to perform full time any other sedentary job for which he was qualified. According to section 120(1) of the Police Act, the applicant’s police service was terminated ex lege as soon as the decision entitling him to a disability pension became enforceable. The applicant challenged the said decision before the administrative courts complaining about discrimination, and claiming that he had been entitled to be transferred to another post within the civil service adapted to his abilities in accordance with section 131a of the Civil Servants Act in force at the material time, section 41 of the Labour Act, as well as Directive 2000/78/EC. He also requested for a question to be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union, and compared his situation to that of police officers who become members of a political party and who were then transferred to another post within the civil service since police officers could not be members of political parties. The administrative courts dismissed the applicant’s claims, finding that his dismissal had been lawful, that he had failed to show that he had been discriminated against by public authorities and that section 120(1) of the Police Act had been enacted at the time of the harmonisation of the Croatian legislation with European Union law, so no issue arose in that respect either. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded by a decision served on his lawyer on 23   February 2022. The applicant complains, relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention, that he was discriminated against on the basis of his disability in that he had never been offered another post suitable to his abilities, as required both by national and EU law. He also maintains that the domestic court decisions had been arbitrary and unreasoned as regards the decisive points. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were the court judgments in his case arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Anđelković v. Serbia , no. 1401/08, §§ 24 and 27, 9   April 2013)? Were they sufficiently reasoned (see Tarvydas v. Lithuania , no.   36098/19, §§ 47 and 52, 23 November 2021)?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of his disability, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention?   3.     Does the applicant belong to a particularly vulnerable group in society, whose members have suffered considerable discrimination in the past? If so, what were the “very weighty reasons” for the restrictions in question on his fundamental rights (see, mutatis mutandis, Alajos Kiss v. Hungary , no.   38832/06, § 42, 20 May 2010, and Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary , no.   11146/11, §   128, 29   January 2013)?