CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mai 2016

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside }   Communicated on 26 May 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no 25824/14 Marjan TARABARIĆ against Croatia and two other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Tarabarić v. Croatia, application no. 25824/14 The applicant, Mr Marjan Tarabarić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Velika Gorica. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Šagovac, a lawyer practising in Velika Gorica. In 2011 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings before the Velika Gorica Social Welfare Centre ( Centar za socijalnu skrb Velika Gorica ) (“the Centre”) seeking to obtain a personal disability allowance on the grounds of his impaired health. On 1 July 2011 the Centre dismissed the applicant’s request, relying on the opinion of the first-instance expert commission of the Ministry of Social Policy and Youth ( Ministarstvo socijalne politike i mladih ), which reported that the applicant’s medical condition did not prevent him from independently engaging in activities suitable for a man of his age. On 13 July 2011 the applicant appealed, contesting the findings of the first-instance expert commission and requested the obtaining of a second-instance expert report. On 18 July 2012 the second-instance expert commission of the Ministry examined the applicant’s file and confirmed that his medical condition did not prevent him from independently engaging in activities suitable for a man of his age. This report was not forwarded to the applicant. On 4 September 2012 the Ministry, relying on the expert reports, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. In his administrative action the applicant contested the findings of the expert commissions, argued that he had never been personally examined by the experts and that he had been excluded from the proceedings before the administrative authorities. He requested to be heard and to be personally examined by the experts. On 28 May 2013 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s administrative action, finding the facts of the case established in accordance with the expert reports. In his constitutional complaint the applicant argued that he had not been able to effectively challenge the expert reports relied on in the determination of the merits of his claim because his request to be personally examined by the experts had been refused. On 18 September 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. This decision was served on the applicant on 2   October 2013. 2.     Matozan v. Croatia, application no. 75112/14 The applicant, Ms Vedrana Matozan, is a Croatian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Trogir. She is represented before the Court by Ms   A. Karara Čović, a lawyer practising in Trogir. In 2011 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings before the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje ) (“the Fund”) seeking to obtain a survivor’s pension following her father’s death. She relied on the Pension Insurance Act ( Zakon o mirovinskom osiguranju ), which provides that children of deceased insurees or pension beneficiaries are entitled to receive a survivor’s pension in the event that they suffer from a general incapacity for work. On 6 February 2012 the Split office of the Fund dismissed the applicant’s request, relying on the opinion of the first-instance expert of the Fund who reported that the applicant did not suffer from a general incapacity for work. On 28 February 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal contesting the findings of the first-instance expert and requested the commissioning of a second-instance expert report. On 27 March 2012 the second-instance expert of the Fund examined the applicant’s file and reported that she did not suffer from a general incapacity for work. This report was not forwarded to the applicant. On 29 March 2012 the Central Office of the Fund, relying on the expert reports, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 26 April 2012 the applicant lodged an administrative action contesting the findings of the Fund’s experts, requesting the appointment of an occupational medicine specialist to examine her, and asking that the Administrative Court hear her with respect to the issue of her general incapacity for work. At a hearing held on 23 October 2013 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for another expert report to be commissioned and declined to hear her, deeming that it did not need to do so in order to decide on the case. On 31 October 2013 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s administrative action, finding that the Fund had based its decisions on expert reports that had been obtained in accordance with the law. In her constitutional complaint the applicant argued that she had not been able to effectively challenge the expert reports relied on in the determination of the merits of her claim as the Administrative Court had dismissed both her request to commission another expert report and to hear her. On 17   September 2014 the Constitutional Court declared her constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. This decision was served on the applicant on 26 September 2014. 3. Škalić v. Croatia, application no. 13692/15 The applicant, Mr Petar Škalić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Županja. He is represented before the Court by Mr   K.   Gloković, a lawyer practising in Županja. The applicant instituted administrative proceedings before the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje ) (“the Fund”) seeking to obtain pension insurance rights on the grounds of his disability. On 21 May 2013 the Vukovar office of the Fund dismissed the applicant’s request, relying on the opinion of the first-instance expert of the Fund which reported that the applicant did not suffer from a disability. The applicant appealed, arguing that the first-instance expert report had never been forwarded to him, and submitted an independently obtained expert opinion which reported that he suffered from an incapacity for work. On 15 November 2013 the second-instance expert of the Fund examined the applicant’s file and reported that he was not suffering from a disability. This report was not forwarded to the applicant. On 20 November 2013 the Central Office of the Fund, relying on the Fund’s expert reports, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. In his administrative action the applicant argued that he had not been afforded an effective opportunity to challenge the Fund’s expert reports as they had never been forwarded to him and he submitted two independently obtained expert opinions, which reported that he suffered from an incapacity for work. In his submission of 26 March 2014, the applicant requested that the Fund’s expert reports be forwarded to him so that he could comment on them and requested that the Administrative Court hear him. On 31 March 2014 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s administrative claim, finding that the Fund had based its decisions on expert reports which had been obtained in accordance with the law. In his constitutional complaint the applicant argued that he had not been able to effectively challenge the expert reports relied on in the determination of the merits of his action as they had never been forwarded to him. On 2   October 2014 the Constitutional Court declared his constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. This decision was served on the applicant on 20 October 2014. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about the lack of fairness of the administrative proceedings given that they were not afforded an effective opportunity to challenge the administrative authority’s expert reports used in determining the merits of their claims.       QUESTIONS to the parties Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of adversarial trial and equality of arms complied with as regards the expert reports used in determining the merits of the applicants’ claims?   The Government are invited to provide copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicants’ cases.       APPENDIX   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   25824/14 26/03/2014 Marjan TARABARIĆ 31/01/1938 Velika Gorica   Antun ŠAGOVAC   75112/14 25/11/2014 Vedrana MATOZAN 29/10/1978 Trogir   Ana KARARA ČOVIĆ   13692/15 11/03/2015 Petar ŠKALIC 14/07/1957 Županja   Krunoslav GLOKOVIĆ