CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Communicated on 31 March 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 67705/14 Tomo IDŽANOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 7 October 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Tomo Idžanović, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Ms   B.   Šojić Mićunović, 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 2010 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings before the Health Insurance Fund seeking that an injury he had suffered at his workplace be recognised as a work-related injury and to obtain health-insurance rights related to it. The Fund rejected his request on 29 November 2010 finding that the applicant should not have climbed the machine from which he had fallen since that had not been his work-related task. It appears that there was no oral hearing before the Fund. In his administrative claim of 29 December 2010 the applicant alleged that the Fund had failed to hear him in order to clarify the reasons for which he had climbed the machine. In a submission to the High Administrative Court of 28 December 2012 he again stressed that the Fund had failed to hear him as regards the circumstances of the accident and explicitly asked for an oral hearing. On 3 October 2013 the High Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request to hold an oral hearing, finding the facts of the case to be sufficiently established, and upheld the decision of the Health Insurance Fund. A subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 20 March 2014. This decision was served on the applicant on 11 April 2014. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of an oral hearing in the administrative proceedings.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the fact that the applicant did not have an oral hearing in the administrative proceedings amount to a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to provide copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.