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. 46785/22 Damir PALASKA against Croatia lodged on 23 September 2022 communicated on 27 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative proceedings in which the applicant unsuccessfully asked to be granted a disability allowance. The applicant is a person suffering from multiple health issues. In 2016 he applied to be granted a disability allowance. The administrative authorities’ experts issued expert reports concluding that his health condition did not warrant the awarding of a disability allowance. The applicant challenged their findings before the Rijeka Administrative Court, which first accepted the applicant’s proposal to conduct an independent expert assessment of his health condition, but then held that obtaining the independent expert report was not necessary given that the applicant had meanwhile been granted another social allowance (care and assistance allowance), which meant that he could not be granted the disability allowance. The High Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent appeal on the ground that in any event the applicant had not managed to put to doubt the findings of the administrative authorities’ experts and that there was thus no need to conduct an independent expert assessment. Before the Court the applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, about a breach of his right of access to a court concerning his request for a disability allowance. He submits that the Rijeka Administrative Court did not examine the conclusions of the administrative authorities’ experts regarding his health condition and his related entitlement to a disability allowance, merely on account of the fact that he had meanwhile been awarded the care and assistance allowance. He further complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the administrative authorities’ experts never examined him in person and that their reports were never forwarded to him. He lastly complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that the domestic authorities unjustifiably deprived him of his entitlement to a disability allowance, which is of a significantly higher monthly amount than the care and assistance allowance which was granted to him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have access to a court in the determination of his request to be granted the disability allowance, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the limitations on access to a court justified in the applicant’s case? In particular, did they pursue a legitimate aim, and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, §   89, 29   November 2016, and Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC], no. 51357/07, §   115, 15   March 2018)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did he have an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings concerning his request for a disability allowance and were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial hearing respected as regards the commissioning and obtaining of the expert reports (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, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II)?   3.     Did the applicant’s claim for a disability allowance amount to a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (compare Carson and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], no.   42184/05, § 64, ECHR 2010)? If so, did the domestic authorities’ decisions dismissing his claim amount to an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions? If so, was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and did it satisfy the requirement of proportionality, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?