CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 2024

.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 16 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12671/23 Ilinka BELEČETIĆ and Antonio BELEČETIĆ against Croatia lodged on 14 March 2023 communicated on 27 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative proceedings in which the applicants’ predecessor, a disabled war veteran, asked for a reassessment of his health condition and related increase in his social insurance allowance. In 2011 the applicants’ husband and father was granted the status of a disabled war veteran of the second group and awarded a disability allowance. In 2015 he applied for a reassessment of his health condition, which had in the meantime deteriorated, and asked to be granted the status of a disabled war veteran of the first group. Notably, pursuant to a relevant domestic provision, if the illnesses of a disabled war veteran had caused such damage to the body that he or she was no longer able to perform basic bodily functions without assistance, the person in question was to be granted the status of a disabled war veteran of the first group. The applicants’ predecessor died seven months after lodging the request and the applicants took over the proceedings. The expert reports commissioned by the administrative authorities established that the health condition of the applicants’ predecessor had deteriorated to complete paralysis of both upper and lower limbs with complications in breathing and swallowing but held that he could not be granted the status of a disabled war veteran of the first group. In so concluding, the expert report commissioned by the second-instance administrative authority referred to the instruction of the Ministry of War Veterans issued on 17 December 2018, without indicating its content. The case file shows that the experts first had issued another opinion, which they however set aside after receiving the Ministry’s instruction of 17   December 2018. Relying on the expert reports, the administrative authorities dismissed the applicants’ predecessor’s request to be granted the status of a disabled war veteran of the first group. The Zagreb Administrative Court confirmed the administrative authorities’ decision. The High Administrative Court held that the applicants had failed to propose to the Zagreb Administrative Court to obtain an expert report by a permanent court expert in order to challenge the conclusions of the administrative authorities’ experts. Before the Court the applicants complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about the unfairness of the administrative proceedings. They submit that the Zagreb Administrative Court failed to obtain a report by a permanent court expert as expressly proposed by them in their action for judicial review; that the High Administrative Court wrongly held that they had never proposed to obtain such a report, and that the decision in the proceedings was ultimately based on the instruction of the Ministry of War Veterans issued on 17 December 2018, which was not disclosed to them. The applicants also complain that the domestic authorities’ refusal to grant their predecessor the status of a disabled war veteran of the first group was unlawful and thus in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Did the domestic courts conduct a proper examination of the applicants’ submissions, arguments, and proposals to obtain evidence (see   Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I)? (b)     Were the principles of adversarial hearing and equality of arms respected as regards the Ministry of War Veterans’ instruction of 17   December 2018 (see Krčmář and Others v. the Czech Republic , no.   35376/97, §§ 39 and 42, 3 March 2000; Van Orshoven v. Belgium , no.   20122/92, §   41, 25 June 1997, and Lobo Machado v. Portugal [GC], no.   15764/89, §   31, 20 February 1996) and the expert evidence (see Letinčić v. Croatia , no.   7183/11, § 50, 3 May 2016; Matytsina v. Russia , no. 58428/10, § 169, 27   March 2014, and Mantovanelli v. France , 18 March 1997, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II)? 2.     Did the applicants’ predecessor’s claim amount to a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see   Carson and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010)? If so, did the domestic authorities’ decisions dismissing their predecessor’s claim amount to an interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions? If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?