CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7D49190C { width:104.74pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 26835/19 Zrinka BLAŽEVIĆ against Croatia   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4 June 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   26835/19) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 14 May 2019 by a Croatian national, Ms Zrinka Blažević (“the applicant”), who was born in 1943, lives in Zagreb and was represented by Mr F. Galić, a lawyer practising in Zagreb; the decision to give notice of the application to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns the deprivation of property arising from the Government Decision of 23 September 1999 (“the Government Decision”) on the restructuring and recovery of Croatia Bank (“the bank”) depriving its shareholders, including the applicant, of her shares, and the lack of access to a court in that regard. 2 .     On 19 February 2001 the applicant brought a civil action in the relevant commercial court against the State Agency for Deposit Insurance and Bank Resolution (“DAB”) and the bank, asking the court to (a) issue a declaratory judgment confirming that she was the holder of a specific number of newly issued shares, (b) order the DAB to transfer the corresponding number of shares from its portfolio to her, and (c) order the bank to record her as holder of that number of shares in the bank’s register of shareholders. Her action was dismissed by the commercial courts, and the Supreme Court declared inadmissible her subsequent extraordinary appeal on points of law. On 17   October 2018 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint, and on 2 November 2018 notified her representative of its decision. 3.     Before the Court, the applicant complained that, on the basis of the Government Decision, she had been deprived of her shares without compensation. She further complained that the Government Decision had been unconstitutional and that the domestic courts had refused to examine its conformity with the Constitution and relevant primary legislation. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 4 .     The Government argued that, prior to the adoption of the Government Decision, the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies because she had not: (i) convened an extraordinary General Meeting of the bank, (ii) brought an action for judicial review in the Administrative Court against the decision of the Croatian National Bank appointing a temporary administrator, or (iii)   brought a civil action for damages against the members of the bank’s Management Board and the Supervisory Board on account of their failure to conduct business with due care and diligence. 5.     In the alternative, the Government submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit because, in the absence of an effective remedy against the Government Decision, the six-month time-limit had started running from the date of its adoption on 23   September 1999. 6.     The Court notes that the Government never raised the above arguments in the leading case of Project-Trade d.o.o. , no. 1920/14, 19   November 2020. In any event, having regard to its findings in that case, the Court notes that the applicant in the present case resorted to the remedy which at the time seemed to have reasonable prospects of success and reiterates that if more than one potentially effective remedy is available the applicants are only required to have used one of them (ibid., §   54). The fact that the remedy in question lacked any prospects of success and was therefore ineffective was established only on 24   July 2013 (ibid., § 56). At that time the remedies suggested by the Government (see paragraph 4 above), regardless of their (in)effectiveness, were no longer available as the relevant time-limits had expired (compare ibid., § 57). 7.     This means that the applicant was not required to use those remedies, and that, by lodging her application with the Court within six months from the service of the Constitutional Court’s decision adopted in her case, she would have complied with the six-month time-limit (see ibid., §§ 48-59, and Pintar and Others v. Slovenia , nos. 49969/14 and 4 others, §§ 103 and §§   106-107, 14 September 2021). 8.     However, that is precisely what the applicant failed to do. In particular, the applicant’s representative had been served with the decision of the Constitutional Court on 2 November 2018 (see paragraph 2 above) whereas she lodged her application with the Court on 14   May 2019, that is, more than six months later. 9.     While it is true that this was not the fact underlying the Government’s objection based on non-compliance with the six-month time-limit, the Court reiterates that this is an issue which it must examine of its own motion (see, for example, Fu Quan, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic [GC], no.   24827/14, §   168, 1 June 2023, and the cases cited therein). 10.     Accordingly, the present application is inadmissible under Article   35   § 1 of the Convention for non-compliance with the six-month rule and must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 27 June 2024.     Dorothee von Arnim   Lorraine Schembri Orland   Deputy Registrar   President