CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 avril 2025

.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 } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sD697BB70 { width:98.32%; border-collapse:collapse } .s9A88B84C { width:7.88%; 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 } .sDA52C966 { width:41.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFFB983EF { width:13.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s38C4E992 { width:19.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s86332EC4 { width:17.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAA0C2691 { width:7.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB0D291F4 { width:41.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA7DFDF81 { width:13.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEE73AB42 { width:19.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s792BD0C7 { width:17.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Published on 22 April 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 16658/24 Aleš Božidar PIŠČANC and Others against Slovenia lodged on 5 June 2024 communicated on 2 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Regulation on spatial plan for Koper Harbour adopted by the Republic of Slovenia in 2011 and which the applicants opposed. The second, third and fourth applicants together with 800 other appellants challenged the Regulation before the Constitutional Court by means of a petition for constitutional review. They claimed that the contested Regulation was unlawful in the part that concerned the change in the permitted use of their land. On 13 November 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed the petition, finding that they lacked “legal interest” in such proceedings. In July 2014 all four applicants initiated civil proceedings against the State, claiming compensation in the amount of one million euros. On 12 February 2020 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed their case finding that they should have lodged a petition for constitutional review before the Constitutional Court to challenge the contested Regulation. An appeal by the applicants to the Supreme Court was rejected. Subsequently the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint, claiming inter alia that the impugned Regulation was unjustified, contrary to domestic law and resulted in significant financial loss. Moreover, they argued that a petition for constitutional review could not be considered an effective legal remedy and that in any case three of the applicants had in fact lodged such a petition, but to no avail. On 11 January 2024 the Constitutional Court dismissed their complaint finding that they should have lodged a petition for constitutional review, as provided in its case-law from 2019 according to which such petition was accepted as the appropriate remedy in such cases. The applicants complain that the contested Regulation was adopted contrary to the provisions of national law and that the status of their property was changed in breach of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention, resulting in a loss of at least one million euros. Moreover, relying on the same Convention provision, they argue that they did not have access to adequate proceedings with respect to these grievances. In addition, the applicants complain that their right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was breached as the Constitutional Court’s decision of 11 January 2024 relied on a change in its case-law (providing for a constitutional review in such cases) which had come only after three of them had unsuccessfully attempted exactly that remedy. Moreover, that remedy was no longer available to them as it had become time barred. The applicants further complain under Article 13 of the Convention that the remedies to challenge the contested Regulation which had been available to them had proven ineffective.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Did the applicants have access to court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ property rights on account of the contested Regulation within the meaning of Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, was the interference justified under the said provision? In particular, was the interference lawful and proportionate, regard being had to the circumstances in which it took place and the requirement that measures interfering with rights enshrined in Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention must be accompanied by sufficient procedural guarantees against arbitrariness (see Pintar and Others v. Slovenia , nos. 49969/14 and 4   others, § 97, 14 September 2021)?   3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?       APPENDIX List of applicants: No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Aleš Božidar PIŠČANC 1974 Slovenian Koper 2. Lucija Nevenka PIŠČANC 1940 Slovenian Ankaran 3. Otmar PIŠČANC 1970 Slovenian Ankaran 4. Bojan VOGRINČIČ 1963 Slovenian Koper