CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 janvier 2023

.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 23 January 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26869/21 Viktor PUNČEC and Sylvia NELSON against Croatia lodged on 20 May 2021 communicated on 4 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the reasons given by the High Administrative Court for dismissing the applicants’ request for quashing or reversing a final decision ( zahtjev za ukidanje i mijenjanje pravomoćnog rješenja ), a remedy available at the time to the parties against final decisions of administrative authorities. The application also concerns the length of the proceedings instituted by the applicants’ request. By their request the applicants contested a final decision adopted in 2007 whereby the administrative authorities dismissed their claim for restitution of property appropriated from their father during the communist regime. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their request was eventually dismissed by a judgment of the High Administrative Court even though the reasons given in that judgment suggest that the request was well-founded. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings complained of? In particular, does a request for quashing or reversing a final decision under section 265 of the 1991 Administrative Procedure Act amount to a request for reopening of proceedings, or to a request for supervisory review?   2.     If Article 6 is applicable:   (a)     Does it follow from the reasons given by the High Administrative Court in its judgment of 4 May 2017 that the applicants’ request for quashing or reversing a final decision was well-founded? If so, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because of a manifest error by the High Administrative Court or because the reasons given by that court for its judgment were insufficient or manifestly unreasonable (see, mutatis mutandis , Dulaurans v.   France , no. 34553/97, §§ 33-39, 21 March 2000; Carmel Saliba v. Malta , no. 24221/13, §§ 62-80, 29 November 2016; and Tel v. Turkey , no. 36785/03, §§ 58-76, 17 October 2017)?   (b)     Was the length of the proceedings in their part before judicial authorities in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Kirinčić and Others v.   Croatia, no.   31386/17, §§   85-88, 30 July 2020; and Mirjana Marić v.   Croatia, no.   9849/15, §§   89-91, 30 July 2020)?