CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 July 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 13205/25 Andrej ERŽEN against Slovenia lodged on 23 April 2025 communicated on 9 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns restrictions imposed on the applicant’s use of land by a municipal spatial plan, without the possibility of expropriation or entitlement to compensation. In 2014, the Municipality of Škofja Loka adopted Decree on the Municipal Spatial Plan, establishing a protected corridor with construction restrictions over the applicant’s plots of land in anticipation of future road development. This measure was prolonged in 2018 with the Decree on Amendments and Supplements to the 2014 Decree on the Municipal Spatial Plan of the Municipality of Škofja Loka (“the 2018 Decree”). The applicant filed a petition for the review of the constitutionality of the 2018 Decree, which was dismissed on the merits by the Constitutional Court by five votes to four. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that the interference with his property rights has been ongoing since 2014, as the adopted measures have prevented him from freely disposing of his property. In this connection the applicant claims that the absence of time limitation for the imposed restrictions makes the adopted decrees incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness. Moreover, he argues that the prolonged inaction casts doubt on the continued existence of a legitimate public interest justifying the interference. The applicant further emphasises that during this time the municipality has not adopted a detailed spatial plan and has not taken any measures to counterbalance the interference with his right to property, such as expropriation with payment of compensation or offer of a suitable alternative property. He also claims that the restrictions have prevented him from selling his property and have significantly reduced its market value. Consequently, the applicant asserts that, given the duration of the measure and the resulting uncertainty, the interference with his property rights is disproportionate. Relying on Article   6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the Constitutional Court failed to carry out a proportionality assessment, did not address all the decisive arguments put forward by him and did not hold a hearing despite being the only tribunal examining his arguments. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right guaranteed by Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Hüseyin Kaplan v.   Turkey , no. 24508/09, § 47, 1 October 2013, and Rosiński v. Poland , no.   17373/02, §   77, 17   July 2007)? 2.     Did the applicant have a reasonable opportunity of putting his case to the competent authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures interfering with his right guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention ( see, mutatis mutandis , G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v.   Italy   [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 302, 28 June 2018, with further references)? 3.     Was the lack of a hearing in the present case in breach of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?