CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 novembre 2024

.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 2 December 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 27043/24 MAKRO 5 GRADNJE D.O.O. against Slovenia lodged on 16 September 2024 communicated on 15 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Municipal Spatial Plan adopted by the Ankaran Municipality which was challenged by the applicant company before the administrative court in accordance with sections 58(1) and 58(2)(1) of the Spatial Management Act (SPA). The applicant company claimed that the adopted spatial plan was unlawful in the part that concerned the change in the permitted use of the applicant company’s land. While the proceedings before the administrative court were pending, the Constitutional Court adopted decision no. U-I-327/20-16 of 18   February 2022 in which it concluded that section 58 of the SPA was unconstitutional and that it had exclusive jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality and legality of local government regulations. Accordingly, since it no longer had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute (the Municipal Spatial Plan being a type of local government regulation), the administrative court dismissed the applicant company’s action. Pursuant to paragraph 31 of the Constitutional Court’s decision the applicant company had three months from the service of the decision of the administrative court to lodge a request for the review of constitutionality and legality of the Municipal Spatial Plan. In its timely request, the applicant company submitted that the contested Municipal Spatial Plan was unjustified, contrary to domestic law and resulted in significant financial loss. It argued that it had had legitimate expectations to build on the concerned piece of land and that the impugned measure had not pursued any public interest and had disproportionately interfered with its property rights. The Constitutional Court did not consider the merits of the applicant company’s request, but, on 30 April 2024, dismissed it, finding that it did not raise an important legal question. The applicant company complains that by adopting the Municipal Spatial Plan the Ankaran Municipality violated its rights under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention by changing the permitted use of its property from “building land” to “agricultural or forest land”. The applicant company submits that, as a result, the value of its property has decreased by at least 1,240,250.00 euros. The applicant company further complains that its right to a fair trial enshrined in Article   6 §   1 of the Convention was breached because it could only challenge the disputed Municipal Spatial Plan before the Constitutional Court which dismissed its claim without examining its merits. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Did the applicant company have access to court for the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the alleged interference with the applicant company’s property rights on account of the contested Municipal Spatial Plan justified within the meaning of Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   In particular, was the interference lawful and proportionate, regard being had to the circumstances in which it took place and the requirement that measures interfering with rights enshrined in Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention must be accompanied by sufficient procedural guarantees against arbitrariness (see Pintar and Others v. Slovenia , nos. 49969/14 and   4   others, § 97, 14 September 2021)?