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 } .sDD7CB8CD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt }     Communicated on 8 September 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 57228/13 Gordana TRBOJEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 28 August 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Gordana Trbojević, is a Croatian and Serbian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Oslo, Norway. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date the applicant submitted a claim to the Zagreb Office of the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje ; hereinafter “the Zagreb Office”) for a disability pension related to her health problems, which were already recognised by the authorities in Norway as grounds for her entitlement to disability benefits. On the basis of that claim, the Zagreb Office commissioned an expert report on the applicant’s condition from one of the in-house experts at the Croatian Pension Fund. On 13 April 2012 the expert produced his report, finding that the applicant’s condition was not of such gravity as to warrant the granting of a disability pension. On 16 April 2012, relying on the expert report, the Zagreb Office dismissed the applicant’s claim for a disability pension. The applicant challenged those findings before the Central Office of the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnja služba ; hereinafter “the Central Office”). In the light of the applicant’s arguments, the Central Office asked another medical expert to examine the findings of the expert report obtained by the Zagreb Office.   On 25 May 2012 the second medical expert upheld the findings of the expert report of 13 April 2012 on the basis of the available medical documentation and in view of the applicant’s specific arguments. Relying on those findings, on 30 May 2012 the Central Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant then lodged an administrative action in the Zagreb Administrative Court ( Upravni sud u Zagrebu ), challenging the findings of the medical experts and asking that the matter be re-examined. On 20 December 2012 the Zagreb Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action on the ground that the expert reports obtained by the administrative authorities sufficiently addressed all the relevant aspects of the case. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) regarding the alleged lack of fairness of the proceedings, and on 28 March   2013 the Constitutional Court declared her constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. 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 claim for a disability pension, and that the principle of equality of arms was not observed with regard to the commissioning and obtaining of the relevant expert evidence.     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 claim for a disability pension, and was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the commissioning and obtaining of the relevant expert report?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.