CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 février 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 22 February 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 6919/16 Mihajla MILETIĆ against Croatia lodged on 26 January 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns 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, were deprived of their shares, and the lack of access to court in that respect. The applicant also complains that the Constitutional Court’s decision was not adequately reasoned because the main arguments in her constitutional complaint were not addressed. The case is similar to the cases of Project-Trade d.o.o. v.   Croatia , no. 1920/14 and Scott Bader d.o.o. v. Croatia , nos. 46998/15 and   24312/16, communicated to the Government on 1 February and 16 June 2017, respectively. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant 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 competent to examine whether the Government’s decision of 23 September 1999 was compatible with the Constitution, or otherwise justified, an issue directly decisive for the outcome of the applicant’s civil action (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria , no.   49429/99, §§ 98-166, ECHR 2005 XII (extracts))?   2.     Did the Constitutional Court, when deciding on the applicant’s constitutional complaint, examine the alleged violations of Article 48 § 1, Article 49 § 4 and Article 50 of the Croatian Constitution? If not, was the Constitutional Court’s decision of 9 July 2015 sufficiently reasoned, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Lăcătuş and Others v.   Romania , no. 12694/04, § 102, 13 November 2012; Jaćimović v. Croatia , no. 22688/09, § 52, 31 October 2013; and Răchită v. Romania , no.   15987/09, § 57, 17 May 2016)?   3.     Has the applicant been deprived of her shares in violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria , no.   49429/99, §§ 132-140, ECHR 2005 XII (extracts))?