CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mars 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 27 March 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 51771/21 Vanessa JURIĆ against Croatia lodged on 15 October 2021 communicated on 6 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns taking of the applicant’s land on which an unclassified access road was built in the 1970s and asphalted in 2000. In 2011 the new Roads Act entered into force. It provided that all existing unclassified roads were ex lege to become the property of local authorities. In 2014 the local authority instituted relevant cadastre and land registry proceedings in which a part of the applicant’s land was transformed into a separate cadastral plot and then recorded in the name of the local authority in the land register. In 2015 the applicant instituted civil proceedings under section 33 of the Property Act seeking compensation as if that part of her land was expropriated. Her claim was eventually dismissed as time-barred because the civil courts found that the five-year statutory limitation period for seeking compensation had elapsed. The domestic courts so decided because they considered that the limitation period started to run in 2000 when the road was asphalted. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the way the domestic courts calculated the statutory limitation period in her case which resulted in her being deprived of her property without compensation. She argues that the taking of her property occurred with the entry into force of the 2011 Roads Act when she had been deprived of her title and that her civil action had therefore been brought in time. Asphalting the road in 2000 did not amount to an interference with her property as the servitude of passage over her land existed since the 1970s when the road had been built, and she had nothing against asphalting the road. The applicant also complains that she was ordered to reimburse the excessively high and unnecessary costs of legal representation by an attorney to the local authority. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     When was the applicant deprived of her title to the land in question?   2.     Was the manner in which the domestic courts calculated the statutory limitation period in the applicant’s case foreseeable? If it was not, has there been a breach of her right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, or of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Yagtzilar and Others v. Greece , no. 41727/98, §§ 20-28 and 36-42, ECHR 2001 ‑ XII; Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy , no. 31524/96, §§   51-63, ECHR   2000-VI; and Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy , no.   24638/94, §§ 58-73, ECHR   2000-VI)?   3.     Was the decision ordering the applicant to reimburse the costs of proceedings to the local authority and/or their amount in breach of her right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, or her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto (see Klauz v. Croatia , no. 28963/10, §§ 42-97 and   104-110, 18 July 2013, and Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia , no.   72152/13, §§   81-111, 6   September 2016)?