CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 juillet 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6E4AD8C3 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEE1EDB13 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sDF995F0C { width:28.98pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }       FIRST SECTION Application no. 7183/11 Kristijan LETINČIĆ against Croatia lodged on 13 December 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Kristijan Letinčić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Mr   V. Đurović, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 24 August 1993 the applicant’s father, Ž., a soldier in the Homeland War, had a road accident. On 26 November 1993 Ž. returned from the war and killed the applicant’s mother, grandmother, grandfather and himself. 1.     Administrative proceedings In 1995, the applicant, then aged seven, represented by his grandmother A., sought family pension, as a son of a Homeland War Veteran who committed suicide as a consequence of a mental disease caused by his participation in defending the sovereignty of the Republic of Croatia. On 19 June 1996 the Susedgrad Defence Office of the Ministry of Defence ( Ministarstvo obrane, Ured za obranu Susedgrad ) dismissed the applicant’s request. On 12 December 1997 the Ministry of Defence ( Ministarstvo obrane) upheld the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance decision and remitted the case. It did so only after the applicant had brought an action for failure to respond ( tužba zbog šutnje administracije ) with the Administrative Court ( Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 10 March 1997. On 22 April 1998 the applicant informed the Administrative Court that he no longer wished to pursue his action for failure to respond. On 13   May   1998 the Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings upon such request. In the fresh proceedings, on 10 September 1999 the Susedgrad Unit of the Ministry of Homeland War Veterans ( Ministarstvo hrvatskih branitelja iz Domovinskog rata, Područna jedinica Susedgrad ) requested the applicant to specify his claim. The applicant complied with this request. On 11 October 1999 the Susedgrad Unit of the Ministry of Homeland War Veterans stayed the proceedings. On 11 February 2000, the applicant’s appeal against the decision to stay the proceedings was dismissed by the Ministry of Homeland War Veterans. On 3 June 2004 the Administrative Court accepted the applicant’s administrative complaint, quashed the second-instance decision and remitted the case. On 10 December 2004 the Ministry of Family, Homeland War Veterans and Intergenerational Solidarity ( Ministarstvo obitelji, branitelja i međugeneracijske solidarnosti , hereinafter the “Ministry”) accepted the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance decision to stay the proceedings and remitted the case. On 8 November 2005 the Zagreb Office for Homeland War Veterans ( Grad Zagreb, Odjel za branitelje i udruge branitelja iz Domovinskog rata ) dismissed the applicant’s pension request. On 15 January 2006 the Ministry upheld the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance decision and remitted the case. In the fresh proceedings, on 26 September 2007 the Administrative Proceedings Unit of the Zagreb Office for Homeland War Veterans ( Grad Zagreb, Odjel za branitelje, Odsjek za upravni postupak ) dismissed the applicant’s request. It relied on witness statements of Ž.’s fellow soldiers and on expert opinion of the Psychiatric Clinic of the Dubrava Hospital, Reference Centre of the Ministry of Health and Social Care for Stress ‑ Induced Disorders, Regional Centre for Psychotrauma in Zagreb ( Klinička bolnica Dubrava, Klinika za psihijatriju, Referentni centar Ministarstva zdravstva i socijalne skrbi za poremećaje uzrokovane stresom, Regionalni centar za psihotraumu Zagreb ). The experts found that Ž. had not suffered from a mental disease which would have been a consequence of his participation in the Homeland War or a consequence of his road accident. They concluded that there was no causal link between the car accident or Ž’s participation in the war and the murders and suicide he had committed. In his appeal of 15 October 2007 the applicant argued that his father had left to war completely healthy and that three murders and a suicide committed immediately after his return from war had warranted for a more precise and comprehensive expert opinion. In addition, the applicant requested an independent expert opinion and the delivery of such opinion, so he could submit his observations. On 2 April 2008 the Ministry dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision. In his subsequent administrative complaint the applicant reiterated his appellate arguments and stressed that the Ministry had failed to specifically address his requests for an independent expert opinion and the necessity to extend the expertise to murders committed prior to the suicide. On 4 December 2008 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s administrative complaint and upheld the second-instance decision. It found the omissions of the Ministry indecisive. On 27 May 2010 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the Administrative Court’s judgment inadmissible. (a)                     2.     Proceedings following the applicant’s request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time Meanwhile, on 16 October 2008 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time ( zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku ) with the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ), complaining about the length of the above administrative proceedings. On 23 February 2010 the Supreme Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded him 11,500 Croatian kuna in compensation. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the administrative proceedings concerning his pension entitlement, caused by the refusal of the national authorities to allow his request for an independent expert opinion and by their relying on the opinion of State-employed experts.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the expert evidence?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of the entire case file from the domestic proceedings.