CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 février 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 39 February 2002 Jovanović v. Croatia (dec.) - 59109/00 Decision 28.2.2002 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-3-a Ratione temporis Final decision issued after entry into force of Convention closely bound up with facts having occurred before its entry into force: inadmissible The applicant worked in a prison as an agricultural mechanic. In 1992 he was dismissed due to his alleged participation in the “referendum” for Serbian autonomy in Croatia in August 1990. His appeal to the Disciplinary Board of the prison was unsuccessful. He lodged a civil complaint with the Municipal Court, which rejected it, and his appeal was dismissed by the County Court. His subsequent request for revision was rejected by the Supreme Court. He lodged a constitutional complaint in which he challenged the constitutionality of these decisions. In October 1999 the Constitutional Court rejected his complaint. Inadmissible under Article 10: It had to be ascertained whether and to what extent the Court was competent ratione temporis to examine the application. The Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997 and the Court was thus not competent in the present case as regards the facts having occurred before that date. While the applicant was dismissed from work in January 1992, the Constitutional Court’s decision of October 1999 was the final decision. The issue before the Constitutional Court was in substance the same as the one before the Court, i.e. the applicant’s freedom of expression. However, dissociating the Constitutional Court’s decision from the events which were at the root of the proceedings would be tantamount to giving a retroactive effect to the Convention. It would also render Croatia’s declaration recognising the Court’s competence to receive individual applications nugatory. Moreover, the applicant’s dismissal was an instantaneous act, which did not give rise to a continuous situation. As to the constitutional proceedings, in so far as they fell within the competence of the Court ratione temporis , the applicant did not make any separate complaints: incompatible ratione temporis .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes