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 }   Communicated on 16 June 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 23472/15 TRAJEKTNA LUKA SPLIT d.d. against Croatia lodged on 12 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application essentially concerns concession-related administrative proceedings in which the Constitutional Court decided on constitutional complaints lodged outside the statutory time-limit by a public entity, and quashed the High Administrative Court’s judgements favourable to the applicant company. The applicant company complains that the Constitutional Court failed to take into considerations its submissions and address its arguments regarding the admissibility of those constitutional complaints. It also complains that the principle of equality of arms and principles of adversarial and oral hearing were not respected in the subsequent proceedings before the High Administrative Court. Lastly, it complains that its property rights were violated by the domestic courts decisions. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in accordance with Article   6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Was the principle of equality of arms and the principle of adversarial hearing respected in the proceedings before the High Administrative Court?   (b)     Was there an oral hearing in the present case before the High Administrative Court, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In the negative, has there been any exceptional circumstances that might have justified dispensing with a hearing?   (c)     Was the principle of equality of arms respected in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court instituted by the Port Authority? Specifically, was the applicant company a party to those proceedings and/or was it given an opportunity to have knowledge of, and to comment on both constitutional complaints lodged by the Port Authority?   (d)     Was the Constitutional Court’s decision of 13 November 2014 sufficiently reasoned, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Specifically, did the Constitutional Court address the applicant company’s arguments regarding the admissibility of the Port Authority’s constitutional complaints?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention?