CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 septembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }     Communicated on 8 September 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 56935/13 Krunoslava ZOVKO against Croatia lodged on 21 August 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Krunoslava Zovko, is a Croatian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Samobor. She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Valičević, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In November 2011 the applicant applied to the Zagreb Office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za zdravstveno osiguranje, Područni ured u Zagrebu ) (“the Zagreb Office”) for paid sick leave on the basis of a work-related injury, which she sustained in a car accident in April 2009. On the basis of that request, the Zagreb Office commissioned an expert report concerning the applicant’s condition from the Croatian Health Insurance Fund. On 6 December 2011 the expert submitted his report, which found no causal link between the injuries sustained in the road accident and the applicant’s submissions supporting her application for sick leave. On 23 January 2012, relying on the expert report, the Zagreb Office dismissed the applicant’s request for paid sick leave. The applicant challenged the findings of the expert report before the Central Office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za zdravstveno osiguranje, Direkcija ) (“the Central Office”). The Central Office asked its medical commission to examine the findings of the expert report commissioned by the Zagreb Office, and on 16 March 2012 the medical commission, on the basis of the available medical documentation, upheld the findings of the expert report. Relying on the findings of its medical commission, on 5 April 2012 the Central Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant then lodged an administrative action with the Zagreb Administrative Court ( Upravni sud u Zagrebu ) challenging the findings of the medical commission. She provided further medical documentation concerning her state of health and requested that a medical report be commissioned. On 31 August 2012 the Zagreb Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action on the grounds that the available medical documentation had provided a sufficient basis for the experts to reach their conclusion. It also considered that the medical documentation provided by the applicant did not call into question the findings of the experts. The applicant complained before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), alleging that the proceedings had been unfair; on 6   February 2013 the Constitutional Court declared her constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 22 February 2013. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that she did not have an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings concerning her entitlement to sick leave and that the principle of equality of arms was not respected with regard to the commissioning and obtaining of expert evidence on the matter.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did she have an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings concerning her request for paid sick leave, and was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the commissioning and obtaining of the expert report on the matter?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.