CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mai 2025

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 2 June 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15638/23 Vlatko IVANDIĆ against Croatia lodged on 3 April 2023 communicated on 13 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal to appoint the applicant to a higher State Attorney’s Office essentially because his wife was employed in the same office. In 2020, the applicant, who was employed as deputy State Attorney at the Pula Municipal State Attorney’s Office, applied for a promotion to a post of a deputy in the Pula County State Attorney’s Office. Despite having obtained the highest number of points among the three candidates following an assessment of his previous work and an interview, by a decision of the State Attorneys Council dated 7 July 2022 the applicant was refused appointment, noting, inter alia , that his wife worked at the same State Attorney’s Office in the same post. His constitutional complaint against the said decision was dismissed on 24 November 2022 (decision served on 6   December 2022). The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, that for reasons pertaining to his private life and marital status, he had unlawfully and discriminatorily been refused appointment to a higher post, despite having obtained the highest number of points. He also complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, about the fairness and outcome of the proceedings before the State Attorneys Council claiming that its decisions were arbitrary and unreasoned since the elected candidate had not obtained the highest number of points.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, by the decision not to appoint him to the post in question (cf. Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, §§ 95-106, 25 September 2018; Budimir v. Croatia , no.   44691/14, §§ 56-65, 16 December 2021)?   2.     Was the applicant treated differently on account of his spouse or marital status by the decision not to appoint him to the post in question and, if so, did such treatment amount to discrimination contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article   8 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No.   12 thereto (see, mutatis mutandis , Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey [GC], no.   3976/05, § 79, 2   November 2010)?   3.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings before the State Attorneys Council (cf. Majski v. Croatia (no. 2) , no.   16924/08, §§ 49-55, 19 July 2011)? If so, 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, was the State Attorneys Council’s decision sufficiently reasoned (see, for instance, Răchită v.   Romania , no.   15987/09, § 57, 17 May 2016)?