CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 July 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 25521/24 Željko ĐURĐEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 2 September 2024 communicated on 20 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of the domestic courts to protect the applicant from workplace mobbing, inadequate reasoning and arbitrariness of their decisions, and his alleged discrimination based on age, health and education. The applicant worked as a manager in a private company for over 31 years. He claims that his mobbing started in 2006 when the new management was installed and that it took various forms: he was verbally criticised; pressured with unrealistic sales performance expectations; members of his team were being transferred to another team without his knowledge, etc. As a result, the applicant developed mental-health problems caused by heightened stress and the doctors eventually determined that he had entirely lost the ability to work. He retired early in January 2011, on grounds of disability, at the age of 60. The applicant then instituted civil proceedings against his former employer for mobbing and breach of his personality rights to psychological and moral integrity and reputation. The courts ruled against him, considering that the events complained of did not amount to mobbing as there were only three incidents and none of the witnesses confirmed the events. For the same reasons, the courts did not take into account an opinion from an expert in psychiatry which suggested that there was a causal link between the “psychosocial stress” at work and the applicant’s disability. In particular, the Split County Court, as the second-instance court, stated that working conditions in contemporary market economies driven by profit were generally stressful and inhumane, adapted only to younger, healthier, more motivated and competent individuals. The applicant raises complaints under Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 thereto. In particular, he submits that the domestic courts failed to effectively examine his mobbing complaints and protect his psychological and moral integrity. He further maintains that their reasoning – suggesting that he is unmotivated, of bad health, and old – is insulting, unacceptable, and that it amounts to discrimination on account of his age, health and education. 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 domestic court decisions sufficiently reasoned and not arbitrary ( see Ajdarić v. Croati a , no. 20883/09, §§ 46-53, 13 December 2011, and   Anđelković v. Serbi a , no. 1401/08, §§ 24-29, 9 April 2013)?   2.     Have the domestic courts thoroughly examined the applicant’s mobbing complaints and thereby complied with their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to protect his psychological and moral integrity (see Špadijer v. Montenegro , no.   31549/18, §§ 85-101, 9   November 2021)?   3.     Were the Split County Court’s findings offensive for the applicant and therefore in breach of his right to reputation as part of his right to respect for his private life protected by Article 8 of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis , Sanchez Cardenas v. Norway , no. 12148/03, §§ 34-39, 4   October 2007, and J.L. v. Italy , no. 5671/16, §§ 134-43, 27 May 2021)?   4.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of his age, health and education, in breach of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, or in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 thereto (see Schwizgebel v. Switzerland , no. 25762/07, §§ 76-99, ECHR   2010 (extracts), and Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal , no.   17484/15, §§ 44-56, 25 July 2017)?