CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   Communicated on 22 November 2011 and 23 May 2017     FIRST SECTION Application no 19083/08 CAROLINEX SP. Z O.O. against Poland lodged on 28 March 2008     The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant company have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint about the excessive length of administrative proceedings under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? 2.     Does the present case concern existing possessions or a legitimate expectation of acquiring possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Lay Lay Company Limited v. Malta , no. 30633/11 , §§ 81, 83, 88 and Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v.   Ireland , 29   November 1991, § 51, Series A no. 222)? If so, does the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case give rise to an interference with the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, in breach of that provision (see Lyubomir Popov v.   Bulgaria , no. 69855/01, §§ 119-124, 7   January 2010)?