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. 53133/22 Danijel VUKELIĆ against Croatia lodged on 8 November 2022 communicated on 6 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the taking of the applicant’s land through which an unclassified road is passing. On 20 July 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. On 6 February 2017 the applicant instituted civil proceedings under section 33 of the Property Act seeking compensation as if that part of his land was expropriated. His claim was eventually dismissed as time-barred because the civil courts found that the five-year statutory limitation period for seeking compensation had elapsed. Those courts so decided because they considered that the limitation period started to run on 20 July 2011 when the new Roads Act entered into force. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 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 his case which resulted in him being deprived of his property without compensation. Specifically, he submits that the limitation period in question could not have started to run on 20 July 2011 when the new Roads Act entered into force, and that the domestic courts failed to assess whether his request for compensation of 11   March 2014 directed to the local authority interrupted the running of the limitation period. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     When was the applicant deprived of his 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 his right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, or of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his 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)?