CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 novembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 December 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 31038/20 Stipo TADIĆ against Croatia lodged on 15 July 2020 communicated on 17 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was a minority shareholder of a company which had been taken over by a majority shareholder to whom he had been obliged to transfer his shares. The administrative courts declared inadmissible his action for judicial review lodged against the relevant State authority’s decision determining that the amount of compensation for the compulsory transfer of shares in the takeover bid had been calculated in accordance with domestic law. Meanwhile, in a related set of non-contentious proceedings instituted by the applicant and the other minority shareholders of the same company, which proceedings were eventually pursued by only one of those shareholders, the commercial courts declared inadmissible a request for expert examination for the purposes of establishing whether the amount of compensation had been adequate. The applicant complains under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention that he had been unable to challenge before a court the amount of compensation awarded to him for the compulsory transfer of his shares to the majority shareholder.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have access to court to challenge the amount of compensation awarded to him for the compulsory transfer of his shares?   2.     If not, did the limitation of the applicant’s right of access to court pursue a legitimate aim and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Kohlhofer and Minarik v. the Czech Republic , nos. 32921/03 and 2 others, 15 October 2009; Suda v. the Czech Republic , no. 1643/06, 28   October 2010; and Chadzitaskos and Franta v. the Czech Republic , nos.   7398/07 and 3 others, 27 September 2012)?