CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 février 2018

.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 22 February 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 26327/16 Daria ROIĆ ERCEG against Croatia lodged on 3 May 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns administrative labour dispute in which the applicant challenged a decision of the president of a court by which she had been reassigned to a lower position with a lower salary. In her administrative complaint she asked the administrative court to obtain, as evidence, the new regulations, which were adopted by the president of the court and upon which she had been reassigned, because she was not in their possession. The court obtained and examined the new regulations but it did not forward them to the applicant to comment them. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms observed as regards the Regulations of the Split Administrative Court of 10   December 2013, no. 3 Su-245/13 (see, for example, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004 ‑ I; Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274; and Letinčić v.   Croatia, no.   7183/11, § 48, 3 May 2016)?