CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juillet 2024

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s53A58D73 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 22 July 2024     FIRST SECTION Application no. 15995/20 VILLA ALBA S.R.L. against Italy lodged on 28 March 2020 communicated on 2 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of the right of access to a tribunal. In particular, the applicant is a company operating in agreement ( convenzione ) with the Lazio Regional Health System. At the moment of the renewal of the agreement with the Region, the applicant company refused to sign a clause which would have implied the waiver of the right to challenge in court the expenditure ceiling in the meanwhile adopted by the Region, with retrospective effects, and the reduction of the budget assigned to it. The action instituted by the applicant company to challenge the expenditure ceiling and the reduction of the budget was declared inadmissible for lack of legal interest. The applicant company submitted that the dismissal of his administrative appeal for lack of locus standi had deprived it of its right to effective judicial protection. It relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention.         QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the fact that the applicant company was challenging expenditure ceilings which had been adopted with retrospective effects, did the decisions of the domestic courts to declare the applicant’s appeals inadmissible owing to lack of locus standi entail an arbitrary or disproportionate interference with the right of access to a tribunal, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5 April 2018m Posti and Rahko v. Finland , no.   27824/95, § 53, ECHR 2002-VII, Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia , no.   1920/14, § 68, 19 November 2020, Obermeier v.   Austria , 28   June   1990, §§ 68-70, Series   A no.   179, and, Konkurrenten.no AS v.   Norway (dec.), no.   47341/15, §   46, 5 November 2019)?