CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 décembre 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left }   Communicated on 19 December 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 57597/17 M.U. against Croatia lodged on 31 July 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns administrative proceedings in which the administrative authorities, including the administrative courts, awarded the applicant a disability pension finding, on the basis of two expert reports commissioned from the administrative authorities’ in-house medical experts, that she suffered a total inability to work. The applicant, who argued that she was fit to work, complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the experts never examined her in person as required by the domestic law and that the expert reports were never forwarded to her. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did she have an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings concerning her entitlement to disability pension and were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial trial respected as regards the commissioning and obtaining of the expert reports on the question of her total inability to work (see Letinčić v. Croatia , no. 7183/11, 3 May 2016; Matytsina v. Russia , no. 58428/10, §§ 166-208, 27 March 2014, and Mantovanelli v. France , 18 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II)?