CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 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 } .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 } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8AB7593C { width:102.26%; border-collapse:collapse } .s231BA05E { width:7.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA92D6C5B { width:27.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBECFC2CD { width:19%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3252B540 { width:18.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE71BB9AE { width:28.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s96AC08EC { width:7.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB8412798 { width:27.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s397E2EAF { width:19%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7EAC7A30 { width:18.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBF9935D8 { width:28.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 23 May 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 15362/22 Srđan LASTRIĆ and 2 others against Croatia lodged on 15 March 2022 communicated on 3 May 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 applicants’ predecessor, of their shares, and the lack of access to court in that regard. In particular, on 4 July 2006 the applicants’ predecessor (father and husband) brought a civil action in the relevant commercial court against the bank and the State Agency for Deposit Insurance and Bank Resolution, asking the court to (a) order the Agency to transfer the corresponding number of shares from its portfolio to him, and (b) order the bank to record him as holder of that number of shares in the bank’s register of shareholders. His action was dismissed by commercial courts and their judgments were upheld by the Supreme Court. On 22 February 2017 he lodged a constitutional complaint, which the Constitutional Court dismissed on 16 September 2021. The applicants’ predecessor died on 27 June 2018 and the applicants were declared his heirs on 11 September 2018. The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants 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 applicants’ right of access to a 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 applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their 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?     No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Srđan LASTRIĆ 1974 Croatian Zagreb 2. Amira LASTRIĆ 1946 Croatian Zagreb 3. Iva LASTRIĆ 1973 Croatian Zagreb