Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jurčić v. Croatia
Jurčić v. Croatia
Siranush Grigoryan
Introduction
• Ms.Jurcic is a lady, born in 1975 and lives in Rijeka, Croatia.
• On 17 November 2009 the she underwent in vitro fertilisation. The doctor in charge
recommended that she take rest.
• On 27 November 2009 the applicant entered into an employment contract with company N.
which had its headquarters near Split, about 360 kilometres away from the her place of
residence.
• On 11 December 2009 the her application to register with the compulsory health insurance
scheme was filed with the Croatian Health Insurance Fund and she was registered as an
insured employee.
• On 14 December 2009 the Ms.Jurcic started feeling nauseous. Her doctor established that the
in vitro fertilisation had been successful, and that the applicant needed rest owing to
pregnancy-related complications. A period of sick leave was thus prescribed.
• On 17 December 2009 an ultrasound confirmed that the she was pregnant with twins.
Administration actions
• On 28 December 2009 she filed a request for payment of salary compensation during her sick leave on account
of pregnancy-related complications.
• On 5 January 2010 the relevant office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund of its own motion, initiated a
review of the her health insurance status.
• On 16 February 2010 the Fund reopened the case concerning the applicant’s health insurance and rejected her
application for registration as an insured employee, along with her request for salary compensation due to sick
leave on account of pregnancy-related complications. It based its decision on an in-house expert report
according to which, when the applicant had taken up her employment with the company on 27 November 2009,
she had been medically unfit for employment because she had undergone in vitro fertilisation ten days earlier. It
was therefore considered that her employment was fictitious and aimed solely at obtaining pecuniary
advantages related to the status of employed persons, including salary compensation during her absence from
work due to pregnancy-related complications.
• She appealed unsuccessfully. The Central Office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund dismissed the applicant’s
appeal on 30 March 2010, holding that although pregnancy in itself could not be a reason for not taking up
employment, the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case suggested that her employment could be
considered fictitious and aimed solely at obtaining salary compensation granted to employed persons.
• On 5 December 2012 the High Administrative Court dismissed the
applicant’s administrative action, upholding the reasoning of the
administrative bodies. It stressed that, in view of her in vitro
fertilisation, on 27 November 2009 the applicant had not been fit to
take up employment that was at a distance from her place of residence
and also required travelling. The relevant part of that court’s judgment
reads as follows
• The Government had argued that the decision to revoke the applicant’s
insurance status had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting public
resources from fraudulent use, and the overall stability of the
healthcare system.
Application to ECHR