CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 septembre 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 } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFD69004D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCE010DF0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:4.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 }   Communicated on 28 September 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27903/15 Nisveta ZUSTOVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 2 June 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Nisveta Zustović, is a Croatian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Kršan. She is represented before the Court by Mr   B.   Zustović, a lawyer practising in Pazin. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 16 February 2012 the applicant’s doctor made a request for an assessment of her capacity to work to the regional office of the Croatian Pension Fund in Pula ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Područna služba u Puli , hereafter “the Pula Pension Fund”). On 9 March 2012 the Pula Pension Fund issued a decision dismissing the request. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Central Office of the Croatian Pension Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnja služba, hereafter “the Central Pension Fund”). However, that body dismissed her appeal as unfounded on 21 May 2012. It relied on an expert medical evaluation carried out by the Disability Commission of the Croatian Pension Fund. On 10 June 2012 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint with the Rijeka Administrative Court ( Upravni sud u Rijeci ), requesting an independent expert opinion. At a hearing on 4 October 2013 the Rijeka Administrative Court ordered an expert medical evaluation by an independent expert witness. On 28 January 2014 the Rijeka Administrative Court ordered the applicant to pay 4,000 Croatian kunas (HRK – approximately 520 euros (EUR) at the time) for the costs of the expert witness report within 15 days. On 11 February 2014 the applicant paid the above amount. On 29 April 2014 an independent medical expert carried out an expert medical evaluation and found that the applicant’s health had deteriorated to the extent that she had completely and permanently lost her capacity to work. At a hearing held on 3 June 2014 the Rijeka Administrative Court heard the medical expert witness, who stated that on 9 March 2012 the applicant had already been incapable of working. On 21 August 2014 the Rijeka Administrative Court adopted a judgment by which it quashed the administrative bodies’ decisions of 9 March 2012 and 21 May 2012, and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It ordered the first-instance administrative body to decide on the applicant’s right to a disability pension based upon the independent medical expert report obtained in the court proceedings. At the same time it dismissed the applicant’s application for reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings (costs of her legal representation and costs of the medical expertise) in the amount of HRK 26,015 (approximately EUR 3,400 at the time). It relied on section 79 of the Administrative Disputes Act. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint. She complained, inter alia , that her right to a fair hearing, in particular her right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 29 of the Croatian Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention, had been violated when the Rijeka Administrative Court, while ruling in her favour, had refused to award her costs and expenses in respect of the proceedings against the State. By a decision of 18 November 2014 the Constitutional Court declared the constitutional complaint by the applicant inadmissible, on the grounds that the contested decision did not concern the merits of the case, and as such was not open to constitutional review. On 2 December 2014 it served its decision on the applicant’s representative. On 3 March 2015 the Pula Pension Fund granted the applicant a disability pension in the amount of HRK 1,322.89 (approximately EUR   170) per month, on the grounds of her permanent incapacity to work. B.     Relevant domestic law Administrative Disputes Act The relevant provision of the Administrative Disputes Act ( Zakon o upravnim sporovima , Official Gazette no. 20/10, with subsequent amendments) provides: Costs of an administrative dispute Section 79 “In an administrative dispute, each party shall bear its own costs” COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right of access to court was violated on account of her inability to be compensated for the excessive costs of the administrative proceedings in which the domestic courts ruled in her favour.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right of access to court unduly restricted because the domestic courts ordered her to bear the costs of her legal representation and of a medical expert even though she won the case against the State? If so, did the restriction pursue a legitimate aim of ensuring the proper administration of justice and protecting the rights of others? If so, was the restriction proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?