CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 septembre 2017

.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 }   Communicated on 26 September 2017     FIRST SECTION Application no. 3681/16 Dario BOSILJEVAC against Croatia lodged on 17 December 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns administrative proceedings in which the applicant sought family pension on the basis of his general inability to work. In order to determine the applicant’s claim the administrative authorities commissioned two expert reports from their in-house medical experts. On the basis of these reports, which found that the applicant did not suffer a general inability to work, the administrative authorities, and subsequently the High Administrative Court, dismissed the applicant’s claim. However, it appears that the applicant was never provided with the second expert report and given an opportunity to effectively challenge its findings. Upon the applicant’s administrative action complaining of the latter, the High Administrative Court found that the procedural omission complained of did not lead to unlawfulness of the administrative authorities’ decision. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did he have an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings concerning his request for family pension and were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial trial respected as regards the commissioning and obtaining of the second expert report on the matter?