CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 janvier 2026

.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 } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sB51F05C5 { width:151.44pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 58236/21 BLT ENERJI ELEKTRIK ENERJISI TOPTAN SATIŞ SAN. VE TIC. A.S. against Croatia   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29   January 2026 as a Committee composed of: Frédéric Krenc , President , Davor Derenčinović, Alain Chablais , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   58236/21) 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 24 November 2021 by Blt Enerji Elektrik Enerjisi Toptan Satiş San. ve Tic. A.S. (“the applicant company”), a commercial company incorporated under Turkish law and having its registered office in Gaziantep, Türkiye, which was represented by Mr   T. Sadrić and Mr L.W. Vuchetich, lawyers practising in Zagreb; the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, non ‑ enforcement under the same Article and under Article 6 of the Convention, and ineffectiveness of domestic remedies under Article 13 to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms S.   Stažnik, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; the comments submitted by the Government of Türkiye, who had exercised their right to intervene under   Article 36 § 1   of the Convention; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns the adequacy of the domestic courts’ handling of a situation where the applicant company’s business partner (another company) had deprived it of its shareholding in a third company which they had established together. It raises issues under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto. Background to the case 2.     The applicant company invested in a geothermal power plant in Croatia operated by the Croatian company Geoen d.o.o. and thereby acquired an 80% share in that company. The remaining 20% was held by the Croatian company Geothermal Solutions d.o.o. Proceedings concerning the appointment of the board of directors 3 .     On 15 June 2020 the representatives of Geothermal Solutions convened a general meeting of Geoen. The applicant company asserted that it had not been informed of this meeting in a timely manner. Several resolutions were adopted at the general meeting, including the appointment of a new board of directors which did not include any representative of the applicant company. The newly appointed directors were recorded in the companies register by a decision of the Zagreb Commercial Court of 18 June 2020. 4 .     The applicant company then instituted civil proceedings challenging the validity of the resolutions adopted at the general meeting of 15 June 2020. Those proceedings are currently pending. 5 .     Concurrently, the applicant company also challenged the registration of the effects of the resolutions adopted at the general meeting. By a decision of 28 January 2025, the High Commercial Court quashed the Zagreb Commercial Court’s decision of 18 June 2020 (see paragraph   3 above) and remitted the case. Consequently, the newly appointed directors were removed from the companies register. In the fresh proceedings, the Zagreb Commercial Court dismissed the registration application on the grounds that the resolutions adopted at the general meeting were null and void; that decision was upheld by the High Commercial Court on 11 June 2025. Proceedings concerning the alleged non-fulfilment of the applicant company’s obligations toward Geoen 6 .     At the meeting on 15 June 2020, another resolution was adopted authorising its new board of directors to invite the applicant company to fulfil certain additional financial obligations under Article   7 of Geoen’s articles of association in respect of the development of the power plant. 7 .     On 31 July 2020 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings to have Article 7 of Geoen’s articles of association declared null and void or, alternatively, to obtain a declaration that it had fulfilled its obligations thereunder. Moreover, on 7 September 2020 it obtained an interim measure whereby the Zagreb Commercial Court ordered that it should be temporarily considered that the applicant company had fulfilled all its obligations to Geoen until the conclusion of the civil proceedings in question. Those civil proceedings are still pending. Proceedings concerning the exclusion of the applicant company as a shareholder of Geoen 8.     At the next general meeting held on 12 October 2020 – of which the applicant company also asserted that it had not been informed in time – several resolutions were adopted, inter alia , a resolution to appoint a new management of Geoen, this time consisting of a single director. The following day, the new director of Geoen adopted a report concluding that the conditions for the exclusion of the applicant company as a shareholder of Geoen had been met because it had failed to fulfil its obligations undertaken in Article 7 of Geoen’s articles of association (see paragraph 6 above). 9 .     Shortly afterwards the new director of Geoen applied to have the effects of those resolutions and the report recorded in the companies register. On 19   October 2020 the Zagreb Commercial Court delivered a decision to remove the applicant company from the list of shareholders of Geoen in the companies register, even though the applicant company had informed that court beforehand of the above-mentioned interim measure of 7   September 2020 (see paragraph 7 above). 10 .     The applicant company then instituted civil proceedings to have that entry in the companies register declared invalid ( tužba za utvrđenje ništetnosti upisa ) arguing, inter alia , that it was contrary to the interim measure of 7   September 2020. Those proceedings are still pending. 11 .     Concurrently, the applicant company also appealed against its removal from the list of Geoen’s shareholders in the companies register. Following a quashing and remittal by the Supreme Court, on 15 October 2024 the High Commercial Court set aside the Zagreb Commercial Court’s decision of 19   October 2020 (see paragraph 9 above) and remitted the case. Consequently, the applicant company was again recorded in the list of Geoen’s shareholders, while the proceedings for its removal therefrom are still pending. Proceedings concerning the lifting of the interim measure 12 .     On 27 October 2020 the new director of Geoen asked the Zagreb Commercial Court to lift the interim measure of 7 September 2020 (see paragraph 7 above). 13 .     While that court refused the request, its decision was overturned by the High Commercial Court on 26 February 2021, which lifted the measure because the applicant company was no longer a shareholder of Geoen. 14 .     However, following an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) by the applicant company, on 20 February 2024 the Supreme Court quashed the High Commercial Court’s decision of 26 February 2021 and remitted the case. Notably, it instructed that court to examine the impact of the interim measure of 7 September 2020 on the proceedings in issue. The proceedings are pending. Proceedings concerning the transfer of Geoen’s business and assets to another company 15 .     On 13 April 2021 Geoen and a newly established company, Geo Power Energy Development d.o.o., entered into a transfer-of-undertaking agreement whereby the entire business and all the assets of the former were transferred to the latter. 16 .     The applicant company instituted civil proceedings contesting the validity of that agreement. On 27 March 2025 the Zagreb Commercial Court declared the agreement in question null and void. Following an appeal by the defendants, the case was transferred to the High Commercial Court. 17.     By a decision of 2 September 2025, the Zagreb Commercial Court opened bankruptcy proceedings against the company Geo Power Energy Development and invited creditors to report their claims to the bankruptcy administrator within 60 days. Consequently, the civil proceedings concerning the validity of the transfer-of-undertaking agreement have been stayed since 10   October 2025. Proceedings concerning the integration of Geoen into Geothermal Solutions 18 .     Meanwhile, on 26 April 2021, by a merger between Geoen and Geothermal Solutions, the former was integrated into the latter. Since Geoen thereby ceased to exist as a legal entity, on 2 July 2021 it was removed from the companies register. 19 .     The applicant company instituted civil proceedings contesting that merger. It also challenged the decisions whereby the Zagreb Commercial Court had recorded that merger in the companies register. On 18 January and 31   May 2023 respectively the High Commercial Court set aside those decisions, which resulted in the deletion of the merger from the companies register. 20 .     Consequently, on 29 March 2024 the Zagreb Commercial Court restored Geoen in the companies register (see paragraph 18 above). That decision was upheld by the High Commercial Court in a decision of 15   May   2024. 21.     In the fresh set of proceedings, by a decision of the Zagreb Commercial Court of 3 October 2024 upheld by the High Commercial Court on 4 December 2024, the application to record the merger between Geoen and Geothermal Solutions in the companies register was dismissed. Complaints 22 .     The applicant company complained that it had been deprived of its shareholding in Geoen, that is, of its property, which the domestic courts had failed to protect, contrary to the State’s positive obligations under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of disputes between private parties. The applicant company averred that its complaints were not premature because it had already been irrevocably deprived of its shareholding, the restitution of which was no longer possible because Geoen no longer existed and its business and assets had been transferred to another company (see paragraphs   9, 15 and 18 above). 23 .     Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and under Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant company further complained, in particular, of (i)   its removal from the list of Geoen’s shareholders in the companies register (see paragraph 9 above), which had been contrary to the interim measure of 7   September 2020, and (ii) the lifting of that measure on 26 February 2021 (see paragraph 13 above). 24 .     Lastly, the applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that in the decision to lift the interim measure (see paragraph   13 above), the High Commercial Court had misapplied domestic law, that that decision had been arbitrary and insufficiently reasoned and that it had resulted in the denial of access to a court. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 25 .     The Court notes that the application generally concerns compliance with the State’s positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention arising in situations of an interference with the right to property by private parties (see paragraph 22 above), as well as specifically the non ‑ observance by the domestic courts of their own interim measure of 7   September 2020 (see paragraph 23 above). 26 .     Having regard to its case-law, the Court considers that this situation raises issues concerning (i) non-enforcement under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Burdov v.   Russia , no.   59498/00, § 26, ECHR 2002-III) and (ii) right to an effective remedy, guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Skokandić v. Croatia , no.   43714/02, §   49, 31   July 2007). 27.     The applicant company’s remaining complaints (see paragraph   24 above) are to be considered absorbed within the above-mentioned complaint concerning the non-observance by the domestic courts of the interim measure of 7   September 2020. 28.     The Government argued that the application should be declared inadmissible for being premature as the domestic proceedings were still ongoing, and also raised a number of other inadmissibility objections. The Court considers that it is not necessary to address the other objections because it finds that the application is inadmissible for being premature for the following reasons. 29.     In so far as the applicant company generally complained of deprivation of its shareholding in Geoen and a breach of the State’s positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see paragraphs 22 and   25 above), the Court notes that the applicant company instituted numerous proceedings with a view to restoring its shareholding. 30.     In that connection, the Court firstly observes that, since the notice of the application was given to the Government, several significant developments have occurred whereby the applicant company’s shareholding in Geoen and Geoen’s status in the companies register have been, at least temporarily, restored to their status as they had been prior to the events complained of (see paragraphs 11 and 20 above). Moreover, all the proceedings instituted by the applicant company, in which nearly every facet of the situation complained of were challenged, are still pending before the domestic courts. 31.     In these circumstances, it is too early to ascertain the effectiveness of the remedies the applicant company resorted to or to specifically assess whether they were capable of preventing the situation complained of from unfolding and irrevocably affecting its shareholding (contrast Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 17854/04, §§ 87-89 and   91, 20   September 2011, and Nikolay Kostadinov v. Bulgaria , no.   21743/15, §§   70-71 and 74, 8 November 2022). 32 .     It follows that, in so far as the present application concerns, generally, the respondent State’s compliance with its positive obligations under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see paragraphs 22 and 25 above), it is inadmissible as premature and must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. 33.     To the extent that the present application concerns, specifically, the non-observance of the interim measure of 7 September 2020 (see paragraphs 23, 25 and 26 above), the Court firstly notes, regarding the applicant company’s removal from the list of Geoen’s shareholders in contravention of that measure, that the impugned decision was subsequently set aside (see paragraphs   9 and 11 above). Moreover, the validity of that removal is being challenged in ongoing civil proceedings on the grounds that, inter alia , it was contrary to that measure (see paragraph 10 above). 34.     Furthermore, regarding the lifting of the above-mentioned interim measure on 26   February 2021, the Court notes that the decision in question was quashed by the Supreme Court on 20 February 2024 and the case was remitted, and that the proceedings to have the measure lifted are once again pending (see paragraphs 12-14 above). Consequently, it appears that the interim measure is still in force (see paragraph 7 above). 35.     In those circumstances, it cannot but be concluded that the relevant proceedings are pending before the domestic courts, which have not yet ruled on, inter alia , whether the applicant company’s removal from Geoen’s list of shareholders was contrary to that interim measure – a question which is pertinent to the examination of the applicant company’s non-enforcement complaint. 36 .     It follows that, in so far as the applicant company complained of the non-enforcement of the above-mentioned interim measure (see paragraphs   23, 25 and 26 above), this part of the application is likewise inadmissible as premature and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 February 2026.     Liv Tigerstedt   Frédéric Krenc   Deputy Registrar   President