CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 avril 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFC8B7517 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:48pt; text-align:center } .s7BEB179E { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCDABDDB1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } FOURTH SECTION Application no. 49232/08 by EURO MARKETING SP. Z O.O. against Poland lodged on 2 October 2008 QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Article 35 § 1 Has the applicant company exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 28 February 2012 (case no. SK 32/10) which discontinued the proceedings instituted by the applicant company.   Article 6 § 1 Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the fact that the applicant company had no standing in the proceedings before the Property Commission and that administrative proceedings instituted by applicant company were suspended on account of the regularisation proceedings.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?   3.     In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   Article 13 Did the applicant company have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?