CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 juin 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 16 June 2017   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 46998/15 and 24312/16 SCOTT BADER d.o.o. against Croatia lodged on 14 September 2015 and 25 April 2016 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the deprivation of property stemming from the Government’s decision on restructuring and recovery of a commercial bank whereby the bank’s shareholders, including the applicant company, were deprived of their shares, and the lack of access to court in that respect. The applicant company also complains that the Constitutional Court’s decisions were not adequately reasoned because the main arguments in the company’s constitutional complaints were not addressed. The case is similar to the case of Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia , no.   1920/14, communicated to the Government on 1 February 2017. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant company have access to court, as required by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, given that neither the Constitutional Court nor the commercial courts examined or were entitled to examine whether the Government decision of 23 September 1999 was compatible with the Constitution, or otherwise justified, an issue directly decisive for the outcome of the applicant company’s civil actions (see, mutatis mutandis , Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria , no. 49429/99, §§ 98-166, ECHR 2005 ‑ XII (extracts))?   2. Did the Constitutional Court, when deciding on the applicant company’s constitutional complaints, examine the alleged violations of Article 48 § 1, Article 49 § 4 and Article 50 of the Croatian Constitution? If not, were the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 22 April and 2   December 2015 sufficiently reasoned, as required by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Has the applicant company been deprived of its shares in violation of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Capital   Bank   AD v. Bulgaria , no. 49429/99, §§ 132-140, ECHR 2005 ‑ XII (extracts))?