CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2026

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 23 March 2026   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 28600/25 and 28957/25 DUBROVAČKA BISKUPIJA against Croatia lodged on 5 September 2025 and 11 September 2025 respectively communicated on 4 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern two sets of administrative proceedings for restitution of property nationalised during the Yugoslav communist regime. In 1997 the applicant diocese lodged two requests for the restitution of property which was nationalised from a Catholic charity in 1960. The requests were rejected by the administrative authorities which held that the applicant diocese had failed to prove continuous activity and legal succession between it and the Catholic charity from which the property had been nationalised (cumulative criteria prescribed by the Croatian statutory law for restitution). The Split Administrative Court and the High Administrative Court upheld those decisions, stating that Catholic Church restitution claims are subject to restitution requirements prescribed by domestic statutory law. They also held that a certificate issued by the competent church authority attesting the applicant’s legal succession and continuity of action was irrelevant because it had not been issued by a State authority. In subsequent constitutional complaints lodged on 28   September 2021 and 15   April 2022, the applicant diocese complained that its property should have been returned in accordance with the treaties between the Holy See and Croatia on legal and economic matters (“the Treaties”), which under the Croatian Constitution take precedence over Croatian statutory law. On 16 January 2024 the applicant further informed the Constitutional Court that, on 14   December 2023, the Government and the Croatian Bishops’ Conference had concluded an agreement reaffirming that succession and the continuity of action of legal persons of the Catholic Church is governed exclusively by canon law and that certificates issued by the competent church authority to that account are binding upon public authorities. The applicant argued that the latter agreement was another proof of incorrect application of law by the authorities in its cases. On 15 April 2025 the Constitutional Court dismissed both constitutional complaints as unfounded, holding that the applicant had undoubtedly failed to prove continuity of action of the Catholic charity, one of the cumulative criteria for restitution prescribed by the domestic statutory law. The decisions were served on the applicant diocese on 12 May 2025. Before the Court, the applicant diocese complains, under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, that the domestic authorities’ and courts’ decisions were arbitrary and lacked reasons with respect to the central issue of the case – the law applicable to restitution claims lodged by legal persons of the Catholic Church. According to the applicant diocese, pursuant to the Treaty between the   Holy See and Croatia on economic matters, Catholic Church restitution claims are exempt from domestic statutory criteria; the sole requirement being that return is possible under domestic law (e.g. property not being destroyed or lawfully transferred to another person). On the same ground the applicant diocese also complains, under Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, that the impugned decisions violated its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant diocese have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic authorities’ and courts’ decisions sufficiently reasoned and not arbitrary regarding the question of the law applicable to restitution claims lodged by legal persons of the Catholic Church (see Zahariev v. North Macedonia , no. 26760/22, §§   42 ‑ 43 and   49 ‑ 50, 5   November 2024; Paun Jovanović v.   Serbia , no.   41394/15, §§   100 ‑ 01, 7 February 2023; and Anđelković v. Serbia , no.   1401/08, §   24, 9   April 2013)?   2.     Did the applicant diocese’s restitution claims have a sufficient basis in national or international law for them to be regarded as “assets” and therefore “possessions” attracting the guarantees of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 35 and   49 ‑ 51, ECHR   2004-IX, and Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania , nos.   30767/05 and   33800/06, § 136, 12   October 2010)? If so: (i) was that interference in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see   Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, §§   95 ‑ 99, 25   October 2012)? (ii) did it pursue a legitimate aim and satisfy the requirement of proportionality, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Yavashev and   Others v.   Bulgaria , no. 41661/05, § 62, 6 November 2012)?