CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 16 June 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 13478/15 FAVAL D.O.O. against Croatia lodged on 10 March 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant company participated in a public tender for granting a concession to use a plot of State-owned agricultural land. On 5 December 2008 the Government issued a decision granting the concession to another company. The application concerns the applicant company’s lack of access to a court with regard to its intention to challenge the impugned Government’s decision. In 2009 the Administrative Court declared the applicant company’s administrative action inadmissible holding that, under the Agricultural Land Act, the impugned Government’s decision was not an administrative act. In its subsequent constitutional complaint the applicant company relied on two Constitutional Court’s decisions rendered in 1997 and 2000, in which the Constitutional Court held that any decision on granting a concession, regardless of which authority had issued it, was an administrative act. In 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant company’s constitutional complaint, holding that according to the longstanding and uniform practice established by the Supreme Court in its decisions rendered in 2004 and 2006, the impugned Government’s decision was not an administrative act and the applicant company could have challenged it before regular civil courts. However, on 15 April 2008 the Supreme Court rendered a decision in which it held that the lawfulness of a Government’s decision on granting concession to use agricultural land owned by the State could not be challenged before civil courts. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that it did not have access to a court and under Article 13 that it did not have an effective remedy, as well as that it was discriminated against. The application is to be communicated under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant company have access to a court with regard to its intention to challenge the Government’s decision of 5 December 2008 granting the concession to use agricultural land owned by the State to another company, in particular having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia no. Rev 483/2007-2 of 15 April 2008?   The Government are requested to submit two copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicant company’s case.