CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 mai 2022

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 263 June 2022 Kotar v. Slovenia (communicated case) - 18047/22 and 18056/22   Article 14 Discrimination Authorities’ refusal to reimburse costs of approved medical treatment in USA as required advance payment was made by a charitable organisation and not the applicant: communicated Article 6 Civil proceedings Authorities’ refusal to reimburse costs of approved medical treatment in USA as required advance payment was made by a charitable organisation and not the applicant: communicated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Authorities’ refusal to reimburse costs of approved medical treatment in USA as required advance payment was made by a charitable organisation and not the applicant: communicated The applicant, a minor, underwent two surgeries in a hospital in the United States of America pursuant to a decision issued by the Slovenian Health Insurance Institute (the Institute) which also undertook to pay the associated costs. Since the costs of the treatment had to be paid in advance, the applicant’s parents collected the funds with the help of a charitable organisation which opened a separate bank account for him. The organisation then paid for the treatment from that account. After paying the applicant a part of the sum, the Institute refused his request for the reimbursement of the remaining sum on the grounds that both the medical procedures and flight tickets had been paid by the aforementioned organisation. The Institute also requested the applicant to return the sum which it had previously transferred to him. The applicant brought proceedings against that decision (application no. 18056/22) and the Institute also brought proceedings against the applicant claiming back the money it had “erroneously” transferred to him (application no. 18047/22). Although in both sets of proceedings the lower courts decided in favour of the applicant, the Institute’s appeals before the Supreme Court were successful. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that the Supreme Court decided arbitrarily – its finding having no basis in the applicable legislation – and without giving any consideration to the argument that the funds collected by the charitable organisation had been donated to the applicant. Furthermore, he complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 that the Supreme Court’s decisions amounted to an unreasonable interpretation of the relevant legislation as a result of which he was unable to receive the reimbursement of medical costs based on his health insurance just because he had been unable to make an advance payment himself. He alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his economic situation. Communicated under Articles 6 § 1 (civil limb) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14. (See also Stopar v. Slovenia, 1400/22, Communication [Section   I])   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes