Communicated on 8 October 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 56898/13 Ivančica ZOVKO against Croatia lodged on 27 August 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Ivančica Zovko , is a Croatian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Samobor . She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Valičević , a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In February 2010 the applicant was granted payment of a disability benefit with regard to an injury which she had sustained in a road accident while commuting to work.

In November 2010 a medical specialist on work-related injuries, as a result of further diagnoses concerning her medical condition, requested that the applicant ’ s entitlement to disability benefit be increased.

On the basis of that request, the Zagreb Office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za zdravstveno osiguranje , Podru č ni ured u Zagrebu ; hereinafter the “Zagreb Office”) commissioned a report on the applicant ’ s condition from one of its in-house experts.

On 30 March 2011 the expert produced his report, finding that there was no causal link between the injuries sustained in the road accident and the applicant ’ s further diagnoses.

On the same day, relying on the expert report, the Zagreb Office dismissed the request to increase the applicant ’ s entitlement to disability benefit.

The applicant challenged these findings before the Central Office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund ( Hrvatski zavod za zdravstveno osiguranje , Direkcija ; hereinafter the “Central Office”) arguing, inter alia , that she had been excluded from the commissioning and obtaining of the expert report, and that the report had failed to take into account all the relevant facts.

The Central Office asked its medical commission to examine the findings of the expert report obtained by the Zagreb Office, and on 13 June 2011 the medical commission, on the basis of the available medical documentation, upheld the findings of the expert report.

Relying on the findings of its medical commission, on 27 June 2011 the Central Office dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal.

The applicant then brought an administrative action in the High Administrative Court ( Visoki upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ), contending that the Central Office had failed to obtain a report addressing her specific arguments, and that the available expert reports were incomplete and flawed. She also provided further medical documentation concerning her state of health.

On 25 October 2012 the High Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s action on the grounds that the available medical documentation provided a sufficient basis for the experts to reach their conclusion. It also considered that the medical documentation provided by the applicant did not call into question the findings of the experts.

The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) that the proceedings had been unfair, and on 14 February 2013 the Constitutional Court declared her constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 27 February 2013.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she did not have an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings concerning her disability benefit claim, and that the principle of equality of arms was not observed with regard to the commissioning and obtaining of relevant expert evidence.

QUESTIONS 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 request for disability benefit, and was the principle of equality of arms respected with regard to the commissioning and obtaining of the relevant expert report?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicant ’ s case.