CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 février 2020

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 10 February 2020 Published on 2 March 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 39761/18 LIQUIDATION ESTATE OF THE COMMERCIAL COMPANY POLJIČAN-RAŠICA D.O.O. against Croatia lodged on 16 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the State authorities’ refusal to allow the import of meat for which the applicant company held a valid import licence due to the introduction of an import ban, as well as the domestic courts’ subsequent dismissal of the applicant company’s claim for compensation for the resultant loss of profits despite the finding that the ban should not have been applied in the applicant company’s case. The applicant company (more precisely, the assets of the wound up company) complains that the domestic authorities violated its rights guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the application of the import ban in the applicant company’s case constitute an interference with the company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions?   2.     If so, was the application of the ban and the domestic courts’ subsequent refusal to award compensation for the loss of profit to the applicant company in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was that interference lawful, did it pursue a legitimate aim in the public or general interest and was it proportionate to the aim pursued? Did it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicant company?