CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 July 2021     FIRST SECTION Application no. 29688/20 Ivančica KNEZ against Croatia lodged on 4 July 2020 communicated on 8 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the revocation of the applicant’s building permit. The Administrative Court found that the decision revoking the permit was unlawful and quashed it. The applicant then brought a civil action for compensation against the State based on legislation providing for the State liability for unlawful acts of the State authorities. However, the civil courts dismissed her action. The applicant complains that the domestic authorities violated her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the revocation of the applicant’s building permit constitute a violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Assymomitis v. Greece , no. 67629/01, 14 October 2004; N.A.   and   Others v. Turkey , no. 37451/97, ECHR 2005 ‑ X; and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, ECHR 2012)?   2.     If so, can the applicant still claim to be a victim of that violation?