5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Pula.
6.  In 1985 the applicant was employed by the T. company of Pula. On 22 August 1992 he sustained a work-related injury. He continued working for the T. company in another post.
7.  On 6 February 2004 the applicant was made redundant following organisational changes within the company. The following day he concluded an agreement with the T. company shortening the notice period for the termination of his employment.
8.  On 19 February 2004 the applicant was given his redundancy notice and his employment was terminated on 23 February 2004.
9.  On 9 April 2004 the applicant was granted a disability pension with effect from 24 February 2004 on the grounds of his inability to work.
10.  On 28 June 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the T. company in the Pula Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Puli). He alleged that he would have received more income if he had not sustained the work-related injury in 1992. He claimed damages relating to the difference between his disability pension and the salary he had received until the termination of his employment.
11.  On 20 February 2008 the Pula Municipal Court dismissed his claim as unfounded.
12.  The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment, challenging all the factual and legal aspects of the case.
13.  On 12 September 2011 the Pula County Court (Županijski sud u Puli), relying on section 373a of the Civil Procedure Act, dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. It agreed with the outcome of the case but held that the first-instance court had failed to take into account all the facts from the proceedings that had supported the dismissal of the claim. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:
“... this appellate court finds that although the first-instance court failed to take into account all the facts emerging from the first-instance proceedings which meant [the plaintiff’s] claim had to be dismissed, the decision on dismissing the claim as unfounded is in any event correct, therefore the first-instance judgment is upheld by application of section 373a of the Civil Procedure Act.
...
This appellate court therefore holds that the plaintiff’s claim was certainly to be dismissed, but for the reasons set out in this appellate decision; that is, that the reasons the first-instance court stated in the reasoning of its decision would not suffice for the claim to be dismissed.
Therefore the first-instance decision is upheld on the basis of section 373a of the Civil Procedure Act ...”
14.  On 5 December 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), challenging the lower courts’ judgments. He stated that the appellate court had relied expressly on section 373a of the Civil Procedure Act, and that therefore he was lodging his appeal on points of law on the basis of section 382(1)(3) of that Act.
15.  On 14 May 2013 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible on the grounds that the appellate court in fact had not applied section 373a of the Civil Procedure Act, and that therefore his appeal on points of law could not be allowed. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“The first-instance court and the appellate court found that the plaintiff had not been dismissed because of his inability to work caused by the work-related injury, but that his employment had been terminated by dismissal due to redundancy and that therefore there was no causal link between his dismissal and the granting of the disability pension, so his claim for damages ... was dismissed as unfounded.
Therefore, in this court’s assessment, the requirements for the application of section 373a of the Civil Procedure Act were not met, given that the appellate court did not establish, in the manner prescribed by section 373a of the Civil Procedure Act, a different set of facts to the one established by the first-instance court, but based its decision on the same facts.”
16.  The applicant subsequently complained to the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) about the Supreme Court’s decision on his appeal on points of law. He made no allegations of any violation of his rights in respect of the proceedings before the first-instance court or the appellate court.
17.  On 16 October 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 25 October 2013.