CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 19 March 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20684/11 Mehmet Zafer YILDIZ against Turkey lodged on 19 January 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns domestic proceedings in which the applicant challenged the decision of the domestic authorities to annul the disability benefit for which he had previously been found eligible. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the first-instance court dismissed his case on the basis of an expert report commissioned during the proceedings that was not communicated to him. According to the applicant, the alleged failure of the court to communicate the expert report deprived him of a real opportunity to challenge the findings reached by the experts and to request a second expert report in a timely manner. He explains in that connection that although he eventually found out about the conclusions reached in the expert report, it had already been too late as the court dismissed the case just four days after he submitted his written objections. QUESTIONS 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, were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial hearing respected as regards the alleged failure to communicate to the applicant the expert report on which the first-instance court based its decision (see, inter alia, Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland , 18 February 1997, § 24, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ I)? Was the alleged defect cured in appeal proceedings?