Communicated on 28 June 2016
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 32997/15
Davorin BULIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 30 June 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Davorin Bulić, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia who was born in 1964 and lives in Čitluk. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Bulić and Mr H. Vukadin, 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.
The applicant, who served as a soldier in the Croatian Defence Council (Hrvatsko vijeće obrane) during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, was injured in 1994 as a result of a grenade exploding in his vicinity while he was on the front line of combat. Due to his injuries, he was accorded disabled war veteran status in 2004 on the basis of an opinion of a medical commission in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The applicant then applied for recognition of his status in Croatia. He relied on Article 1 § 1 (7), of the International Agreement between the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina on the Rights of Persons Harmed in the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina who were members of the Croatian Defence Council and their family members (Ugovor između Republike Hrvatske i Bosne i Hercegovine o suradnji na području prava stradalnika rata u Bosni i Hercegovini koji su bili pripadnici Hrvatskog vijeća obrane i članova njihovih obitelji – hereinafter “the Agreement”), which stipulated that the Republic of Croatia would grant pensions to soldiers of the Croatian Defence Council who had Croatian citizenship and had been wounded in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
On 15 February 2008 the Osijek Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Područna služba u Osijeku – hereinafter “the Fund”), relying on the opinion of its expert, dismissed the applicant’s request, finding that he did not meet the requirements under Article 1 § 1 (7), of the Agreement.
The applicant challenged the decision before the Central Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnja služba – hereinafter “the Central Office”) and requested another expert report. On 14 April 2008 the Central Office dismissed his appeal. It found that since he had been granted disabled war veteran status in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the basis of his injuries (povrede) and not wounding (ranjavanje), he could not be granted a pension. The Central Office provided no further reasons for the distinction between injuries and wounding. On 23 March 2011 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s administrative claim, endorsing the findings of the Central Office.
On 11 April 2013, following a constitutional complaint by the applicant, the Constitutional Court quashed the Administrative Court’s judgment, finding that the relevant law had been applied arbitrarily. In particular, it found that the Administrative Court and administrative authorities had failed to provide reasons for their conclusion that the applicant’s injuries could not be considered wounding.
On 17 July 2013 the High Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia quashed the Central Office’s decision of 14 April 2008 and instructed it to commission another expert report in order to establish the cause of the applicant’s physical disability. On 26 February 2014 the Administrative Court quashed the Central Office’s decision issued on 18 December 2013, given that it had again dismissed the applicant’s appeal without commissioning another expert report.
On 2 April 2014 the Central Office’s expert examined the applicant’s file and reported that he had been injured and not wounded. It did not explain the distinction between injuries and wounding. The report was not forwarded to the applicant.
On 8 April 2014 the Central Office, relying on the expert reports, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It did not provide any reasons for the distinction between injuries and wounding.
In an administrative claim, the applicant contested the experts’ findings and complained that he had never been served with the expert reports. He also complained that the Central Office’s decision had been arbitrary, alleging that it had failed to provide any reasons for the distinction between injuries and wounding. On 24 June 2014 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s administrative claim, finding the Central Office’s decision sufficiently reasoned.
In a constitutional complaint, the applicant argued that he had been unable to effectively challenge the expert reports relied on in the determination of the merits of his claim as they had never been forwarded to him. Moreover, that the Administrative Court and administrative authorities had failed to provide any reasons for the distinction between injuries and wounding.
On 11 December 2014 the Constitutional Court declared his constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. Its decision was served on the applicant on 5 January 2015.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of a lack of fairness in the administrative proceedings given that he was not afforded an effective opportunity to challenge the administrative authority’s expert reports used in determining the merits of his claim. He also complains that the domestic authorities’ decisions were arbitrary and lacked reasons with respect to the central issue of the case.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, (i) was the principle of adversarial trial and equality of arms complied with as regards the expert reports used in determining the merits of his claim, and (ii) were the domestic authorities’ decisions dismissing the applicant’s pension claim arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, taking into account the lack of reasons?
The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy