The dismissal of a teacher who taught Serbian in a Croatian school violated the right to privacy
JUDGMENT
Mile Novaković v. Croatia 17.12.2020 (app. no. 73544/14)
SUMMARY
The case concerned a teacher’s complaint about being dismissed in 1999 for giving his classes in
Serbian rather than in Croatian. Of Serb ethnicity, he had lived and worked in Croatia for most of his
professional life and at the time of his dismissal was working at a secondary school in Eastern
Slavonia, in an area which had been peacefully reintegrated into Croatian territory after the war. The
authorities held in particular that he could not be expected to learn Croatian, given that he was
55 years old at the time.
The Court ruled that the authorities had dismissed the teacher, without considering any alternatives
such as training. Relying solely on his age and years of service, the authorities had applied the most
severe sanction, thereby significantly interfering with his rights.
PROVISION
Article 8
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Mile Novaković, now deceased, was a Croatian national who was born in 1944 and
lived in Darda (Croatia).
Mr Novaković, of Serb ethnicity, worked as a teacher in Croatia from 1971. From July 1998 he was
employed in a secondary school in the Darda region, an area in Eastern Slavonia which was
peacefully reintegrated into Croatian territory after the war.
Following an inspection carried out only on teachers of Serb ethnicity, the applicant was initially
prohibited from teaching in administrative proceedings. The Administrative Court ultimately set
aside that decision in 2006, on the grounds that the question of which language the classes at the
applicant’s school were meant to be taught in at the time had not been conclusively established.
In the meantime, the school dismissed the applicant in March 1999 for failing to use the standard
Croatian while teaching, as provided for under the relevant domestic law. It concluded that it could
not transfer the applicant because there were no posts in the school for teaching in Serbian. Nor
could he be provided with training as he could not be expected to learn Croatian given that he was
55 years old at the time.
The applicant challenged his dismissal in the courts, including by lodging a complaint in 2011 with
the Constitutional Court, in vain.
Relying on Article 8 (right to private life), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination), the applicant complained that his dismissal
had been arbitrary and that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his age and his Serb
ethnicity. He argued in particular that not knowing a couple of words in Croatian during his
inspection should not have led to such a drastic measure as dismissal.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
Article 8 (right to private life)
First, the Court was satisfied that the reasons for the applicant’s dismissal – using Serbian in his daily
work and alleged inability to adapt his language of instruction to the requirements of his post due to
his age – had been sufficiently linked to his private life. In particular the language used by an
individual necessarily formed part of his or her ethnic identity, while age was part of a person’s
physical identity. Article 8 was therefore applicable in the case.
The Government argued that the applicant’s dismissal had been necessary to protect the right of
pupils to an education in the Croat language. While the Court in no way wished to undermine that
aim or its importance in the specific context of the Eastern Slavonia region at the time, it noted that
no alternatives to dismissal which would have allowed the applicant to align his teaching with the
legislation in force had ever been contemplated in his case.
The education inspector had simply decided that the applicant should be prohibited from teaching,
without giving him the opportunity to correct the irregularities in his work within a certain period of
time, which was a possibility under the relevant domestic law.
The school had rejected the possibility of additional training, purely on the grounds of the
applicant’s age and years of service. Moreover, neither the school nor any of the domestic courts
had ever provided a detailed and convincing explanation as to why the applicant’s age would have
been an insurmountable impediment to him adjusting his teaching plan so that he could teach in the
standard Croatian.
Indeed, given the undeniable proximity of the two languages concerned, as well as the fact that the
applicant had lived and worked in Croatia for most of his professional life, it was difficult to
understand why the option of providing him with additional training had not been explored.
The Court also pointed out that, in any case, the domestic authorities themselves – administrative
and civil courts – had had difficulties in establishing in which language the applicant had been
expected to teach at the relevant time.
Lastly, no teachers of Croat ethnicity had been inspected at the applicant’s school. In the post-war
context of the Eastern Slavonia region at the time, singling out a certain group of persons on the
basis of language, which was closely related to their ethnicity, could potentially raise an issue of
compatibility with the European Convention and the Croatian Constitution.
The Court concluded that the applicant’s dismissal from work had not corresponded to a pressing
social need, nor had it been proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved, in violation of Article 8
of the Convention.
Other articles
The Court held, by six votes to one, that there was no need to examine separately the applicant’s
complaints under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention and under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. It noted that it had already taken into account the domestic
authorities’ reliance on the applicant’s age and their decision to inspect the work of only some
teachers, based on their ethnic origin, in its examination of the complaint under Article 8.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Croatia was to pay the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 850 in respect of costs and expenses.
Separate opinions
Judge Wojtyczek expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.
