CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 septembre 2021

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 October 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 25174/18 HUP - ZAGREB D.D. against Croatia lodged on 24 May 2018 communicated on 13 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the State’s positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the situation where the State had first sequestered the applicant company’s hotel and in the period between 1991 and 2001 used it to provide accommodation for around 650 war veterans, internally displaced persons and refugees. In 2005 the applicant company brought a civil action against the State claiming that the persons accommodated in its hotel had badly damaged it. The claim was dismissed on the grounds that there was no legal basis for the State’s liability in such circumstances. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present case require the State to keep the applicant company’s property in relatively good condition and to provide compensation for the damage sustained (see Dabić v. Croatia , no. 49001/14, § 65, 18 March 2021)? If so, did the State discharge those positive obligations in the present case?