CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10014/23 Lorijana MIOČIĆ against Croatia lodged on 24 February 2023 communicated on 27 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings which the applicant instituted against the State in 2000 seeking compensation for the damage she had sustained when in 1996 her car had been unduly impounded in the minor ‑ offence proceedings against her concerning a customs offence, and subsequently sold in 1998. In 2016, the first-instance court awarded the applicant compensation in the amount corresponding to the value of the car on the day when it had been impounded, as determined by the court expert. Moreover, she was awarded the statutory interest accrued on that amount from the day of the adoption of the first-instance judgment, while the remaining part of her claim concerning the statutory interest accrued on that amount from the day when the car had been impounded was dismissed. That judgment was upheld by the second ‑ instance court on 14 March 2017. On 7 February 2018 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, and by a decision of 13   October 2022, received by her representative on 26 October 2022, the Constitutional Court dismissed her subsequent constitutional complaint. The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that she was not fully compensated for the value of the property she had been deprived of. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, she complains about the excessive length of the proceedings for compensation.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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, having regard to the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant, did the sale of her car constitute a disproportionate interference with her property ( compare Guiso-Gallisay v.   Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, §§ 103-105, 22 December 2009; Schembri and Others v. Malta , no. 42583/06, §§ 35-46, 10 November 2009; and Gashi v. Croatia , no. 32457/05, § 41, 13 December 2007)?   2.     Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in the period after 14   March 2013 in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII)?