CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mai 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 May 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45135/21 Snježana ZUPIČIĆ-PEŠUT against Croatia lodged on 2 September 2021 communicated on 5 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2011 the applicant sustained severe damage to her eyesight, allegedly due to gas poisoning at her workplace. In two sets of administrative proceedings in which she sought to be granted pension insurance rights, the domestic authorities established, by a final decision, that her injury amounted to a work-related injury. She also instituted administrative proceedings seeking health insurance rights, but in that set of proceedings the authorities dismissed her request on the ground that her injury did not amount to a work ‑ related injury. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that in the proceedings concerning her request to be granted health insurance rights the domestic authorities re-examined and ruled differently on a matter which was already determined with final effect in other sets of administrative proceedings. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the fact that in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s request to be granted health insurance rights the domestic authorities ruled that the injury she had sustained did not amount to a work-related injury, whereas in other sets of administrative proceedings it was established by a final decision that her injury did amount to a work-related injury, has there been a breach of the principle of legal certainty, and in particular of the res   judicata principle, inherent in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Kehaya and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 47797/99 and 68698/01, §§ 58-70, 12 January 2006; Esertas v. Lithuania , no. 50208/06, §§   20-32, 31 May 2012; and Brletić v. Croatia , no. 42009/10, §§ 37-51, 16   January 2014 )?