CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 octobre 2022

.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 2 November 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 13980/19 Katerina TRAJCHESKA against North Macedonia lodged on 6 March 2019 communicated on 13 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged violation of the principle of equality of arms related to a lack of impartiality of an expert who drew up expert opinions in the context of the impugned compensation proceedings that the applicant instituted against an insurance company concerning a bodily injury that she had sustained in a traffic accident in August 2010. The first-instance court admitted three expert opinions, namely an opinion submitted in evidence by the applicant, by the defendant, the latter drawn up by a certain G.A., as well as a court-commissioned opinion ( супервештачење ), drawn up by three experts, including G.A. Relying on the last two opinions, the court established that in the accident the applicant had sustained minor bodily injuries, which were unrelated to the medical treatment and surgery that she had undergone from 2011 to 2013. It dismissed the claim as time-barred finding that the relevant period started to run from 9   March 2011 when the applicant had become aware of the person responsible for the accident (the date when the applicant was apprised of the conviction of the driver of the car) and not from 2013 when, as claimed by the applicant, she had still undergone medical treatment related to the accident. The higher courts upheld the first-instance judgment and dismissed the applicant’s complaint in respect to G.A.’s participation in the court-commissioned opinion, in view of its collegial nature. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the same expert who drew up the expert opinion submitted in evidence by the defendant participated in the preparation of the court-commissioned expert opinion. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her 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 (see   Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland , no.   31930/04, § 47, 5 July 2007, and Letinčić v. Croatia , no. 7183/11, § 51, 3 May 2016)?