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. 30528/24 Edvard OVEN and RDECE NEBO D.O.O. against Slovenia lodged on 14 October 2024 communicated on 15 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is the sole owner of the applicant company . The application concerns the Municipal Spatial Plan adopted by the Ankaran Municipality which was challenged by the applicants before the administrative court in accordance with sections 58(1) and 58(2)(1) of the Spatial Management Act (SPA). The applicants argued that the adopted spatial plan was unlawful in the part that changed the permitted use of their land, of which they each owned 50%. 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 applicants’ action. Pursuant to paragraph 31 of the Constitutional Court’s decision the applicants 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 their timely request, the applicants submitted that the contested Municipal Spatial Plan was unjustified, contrary to domestic law and resulted in significant financial loss for them. They argued that they had had legitimate expectations to build on the concerned piece of land or sell it and that the impugned measure had not pursued any public interest and had disproportionately interfered with their property rights. The applicants further claimed that because their property had been de facto expropriated, they should have, at the very least, received compensation The Constitutional Court did not consider the merits of the applicants’ request, but, on 5 June 2024, dismissed it, finding that it did not raise an important legal question. The applicants complain that by adopting the Municipal Spatial Plan the Ankaran Municipality violated their rights under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention by changing the permitted use of their property from “building land” to “agricultural or forest land”. They submit that, as a result, the value of their property has decreased by at least 829,593.28 euros, and that they should have therefore been compensated for their financial loss. The applicants further complain that their right to a fair trial enshrined in Article   6 §   1 of the Convention was breached because they could only challenge the disputed Municipal Spatial Plan before the Constitutional Court which dismissed their claim without examining its merits. They also raise Article 13 in this connection. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have access to court for the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the alleged interference with the applicants’ 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)?