EHRM, 30-05-2017, nr. 79653/12

The applicant submitted that the termination of his employment in the labour dispute had only been established by the Slavonski Brod County Court, which had set the day of termination as being more than one year beforehand. It had therefore been objectively impossible for him to lodge an unemployment benefit claim within the time-limit set by section 31 of the Job Placement Act, if that time-limit was calculated from the day of the termination of employment.

The applicant further asserted that during the labour dispute he had already been receiving unemployment benefit under the Slavonski Brod Bureau's decision of 6 December 2000. Given that the Nova Gradiška Municipal Court had ordered his reinstatement, he had had no reason to lodge another unemployment benefit claim at that time. The applicant added that as soon as he had learned about the Slavonski Brod County Court judgment establishing the date for the termination of his employment, he had contacted the Slavonski Brod Bureau and informed its officials of that new circumstance. He therefore argued that it was only logical that the time-limit for lodging the unemployment benefit claim should be calculated from the day he had learned about the Slavonski Brod County Court judgment.

The Government argued that the applicant ought to have been aware of the possibility that the civil courts would set the day of the termination of his employment retroactively in the labour dispute, and about the repercussions of such a decision on his ability to lodge a timely unemployment benefit claim. Firstly, the Government explained that the relevant provisions of the Labour Act afforded the courts a certain amount of discretion when establishing the day of the termination of employment (see paragraph 28 above). Secondly, the Government contended that the provisions of the Job Placement Act governing the time-limit for lodging an unemployment benefit claim (see paragraph 27 above) had been accessible to the applicant and clear. Moreover, the Government noted that the Administrative Court's practice of calculating the time-limit for lodging a claim from the day of the termination of employment, regardless of that day being set by the courts in a labour dispute (see paragraph 29 above), had made the application of the rules foreseeable in practice.

The Government submitted that the applicant could have lodged a timely unemployment benefit claim. In the Government's view, the applicant should have lodged the claim as soon as he had learned that his employer had submitted a counterclaim in the labour dispute, bearing in mind the possibility that the courts would set the day of the termination of his employment retroactively. The Government argued that the applicant had in any event been required to report that circumstance to the Employment Bureau, pursuant to section 54 of the Job Placement Act. If the applicant had done so, the Employment Bureau's officials would have instructed him to lodge a claim in order to ensure its timeliness, regardless of the outcome of the labour dispute. The Government added that the Employment Bureau would have decided on the applicant's claim only after a final judgment had been rendered in the labour dispute.

Lastly, the Government noted that the applicant had contacted the Employment Bureau's officials on 27 March 2008 and 2 April 2008, when it had already been too late to lodge a timely request.

The general principles concerning the right of access to a court are set out in the case of Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania ([GC], no. 76943/11, §§ 84–90, 29 November 2016). In the case at issue the following general principles are of relevance.

Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have a claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others, cited above, § 84; see also Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 116, ECHR 2005-X, and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 91, ECHR 2001-V).

The right of access to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a determination of the dispute by a court (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others, cited above, § 86; Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, § 25, ECHR 2002-II; Multiplex v. Croatia, no. 58112/00, § 45, 10 July 2003, and Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 68, 10 August 2006). It would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed an individual to bring a civil action before a court without ensuring that the case would be determined by a final decision in the judicial proceedings.

The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations; these are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others, cited above, § 89, and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 230, ECHR 2012). Nonetheless, the limitations applied must not restrict the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others, cited above, § 89).

It is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation (see Edificaciones March Gallego S.A. v. Spain, judgment of 19 February 1998, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I). This applies in particular to the interpretation by courts of rules of a procedural nature such as time-limits governing the filing of documents or lodging of appeals (see, among other authorities, Pérez de Rada Cavanilles v. Spain, 28 October 1998, § 43, Reports 1998-VIII). The Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention. The Court will not therefore question under Article 6 § 1 the judgment of the national courts, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others, cited above, § 90).

The Court is of the view that when under the national legislation an applicant has to exhaust an administrative procedure before having recourse to a court, the rules governing the time-limit for lodging a claim with the administrative authority may affect the right of access to a court as secured by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27, and Kiurkchian v. Bulgaria, no. 44626/98, § 51, 24 March 2005).

It is clear that in the instant case the applicant was not prevented from making a claim for unemployment benefit, but that does not suffice, as the right of access to a court includes not only the right to institute proceedings but also the right to obtain a determination of the dispute by a court. In the present case the administrative authorities, including the Administrative Court, rejected the applicant's unemployment benefit claim, finding that he had lodged it outside the time-limit provided by section 31 of the Job Placement Act.

The Court notes that section 31 of the Job Placement Act lays down that the thirty-day time-limit for lodging an unemployment benefit claim runs from the day of the termination of employment, and that an additional, sixty-day time-limit runs from the expiry of the thirty-day limit (see paragraph 27 above). The Court further notes that the Administrative Court's case-law submitted by the Government expresses the view that the time-limit for lodging a claim is to be calculated from the day of the termination of employment, regardless of how that day was set (see paragraph 29 above).

The Court reiterates that its task is not normally to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to, or affected, the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 164, ECHR 2015). In the present case the domestic authorities calculated the time-limit for lodging the claim from the day of the termination of the applicant's employment. However, it is undisputed that the day of the termination of his employment, namely 23 January 2007, was established in the labour dispute only on 15 February 2008, thus inevitably after the time-limit set out in section 31 of the Job Placement Act had expired. It is also undisputed that the applicant only found out about the day of the termination of his employment on 5 March 2008 when he received the Slavonski Brod County Court judgment (see paragraph 13 above).

In that connection, the Court has already held that parties must be able to avail themselves of the right to bring an action or to lodge an appeal from the moment they can effectively apprise themselves of court decisions imposing a burden on them or which may infringe their legitimate rights or interests (see Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain, nos. 38366/97 et al., § 37, ECHR 2000-I). To hold otherwise could substantially reduce the time-limit for lodging an action, or even render its timeliness impossible.

In light of this the Court considers that to calculate the time-limit for lodging the unemployment benefit claim from the day the court established as the day of termination of the applicant's employment (23 January 2007) instead of from the date the applicant learned about the day of the termination of his employment (5 March 2008) could in the present case constitute an unreasonable construction of a procedural requirement which would prevent a claim being examined on the merits.

However, the Court notes that the applicant lodged his unemployment benefit claim after the expiry of the thirty-day time-limit even if 5 March 2008 is taken as a starting date for its running (see paragraph 14 above). Since the applicant did not submit any reason whatsoever for missing that time-limit he would not have been entitled to the additional, sixty-day time-limit provided by section 31(2) of the Job Placement Act (see paragraph 27 above). Therefore, irrespective of the findings of the domestic authorities which might be subject to some criticism (see paragraph 51 above), the applicant in any event did not comply with the time-limit for lodging his unemployment benefit claim.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.