CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mars 2022

.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 11 April 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 7687/22 Lorna VLAŠIĆ against Croatia lodged on 1 February 2022 communicated on 25 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the deprivation of property arising from the Government Decision of 23 September 1999 on the restructuring and recovery of Croatia Bank depriving the bank’s shareholders, including the applicant, of their shares, and the lack of access to court in that regard. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant able to effectively challenge the Government Decision of 23 September 1999 on the restructuring and recovery of Croatia Bank before the domestic courts? If not, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia , no. 1920/14, §§ 62-74, 19   November 2020)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention? In particular, was that interference accompanied by sufficient procedural guarantees against arbitrariness and thus lawful within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Project-Trade d.o.o. v.   Croatia , no. 1920/14, §§ 75-88, 19 November 2020)?   3.     Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?