CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mai 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 26 May 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 20100/25 Mojca KOREN against Slovenia lodged on 26 June 2025 communicated on 5 May 2026 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns the Škrjanče Economic Zone, which is in the vicinity of the applicant’s home and which was established on the basis of the allegedly unlawful Amended Spatial Plan of the Municipality of Ivančna Gorica (“the Amended Spatial Plan”). In the domestic proceedings, the applicant sought, inter alia , the annulment of the Environmental Licence issued on 2 October 2018 to one of the contractors for the construction of road and utility infrastructure in the Škrjanče Economic Zone, intended to enable the area’s further development with facilities and planned production and service activities within the zone. The Environmental Licence authorised forest logging, terrain levelling, and the development of transport networks and public economic infrastructure. The applicant also sought the annulment of the Amended Spatial Plan claiming that it was unlawful in the part relating to the expansion of the Škrjanče Economic Zone in the vicinity of her home. The domestic authorities concluded that none of the statutory grounds for annulling the Environmental Licence were met. They did not examine the applicant’s complaint as to the unlawfulness of the Amended Spatial Plan and her arguments about other procedural and evidentiary deficiencies in issuing the Environmental Licence (fact ‑ finding, evidence, and environmental monitoring) and its incompatibility with substantive regulations, finding that those issues were to be addressed in separate proceedings. On 10 April 2025 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s request for a review of the constitutionality of the Amended Spatial Plan. In its decision, the Constitutional Court noted that the applicant’s request for such review had already been dismissed on three previous occasions, as she lacked the requisite legal interest. It emphasised that she should first exhaust the legal remedies available to her in the proceedings concerning the individual building permits requested based on the Amended Spatial Plan. The applicant argues that that would have required from her to challenge a high number of individual building permits whereas her grievance concerns the spatial plan that underpins the issuing of such permits. In the meantime, on 23 April 2019, the Ministry of the Environment reopened the proceedings for the issuance of the Environmental Licence and suspended the effects of the licence already issued, having found that the applicant should have been included in the proceedings on account of her legal interest. Those proceedings are still pending, and the applicant maintains that the construction activities continue despite the suspension of the licence. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant claims that the construction and operation of the Škrjanče Economic Zone, located in the vicinity of her home, have seriously interfered with her private and family life. She argues that, since 2016, she and her family have been exposed to excessive noise, vibrations, dust, air pollution, and other emissions. She further claims that these emissions have caused material damage, including damage to her residential building. Consequently, the applicant maintains that this demonstrates a failure by the State to comply with its positive obligations under Article 8 to protect her right to respect for private and family life. She also invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant further argues that she has no effective remedy for challenging the lawfulness of the Amended Spatial Plan. She claims that the domestic authorities failed to answer some of her key arguments regarding the unlawfulness of the issued Environmental Licence and to assess whether the Amended Spatial Plan struck a fair balance between the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention and the interests of the community. In this regard, she emphasises that, despite having initiated multiple sets of domestic proceedings, she was unsuccessful, primarily for procedural reasons linked to the domestic authorities’ refusal to recognise her legal interest. She argues that the domestic courts adopted an excessively formalistic approach, placing a disproportionate burden on her by requiring the initiation of new proceedings and the continuous monitoring of numerous related administrative procedures. Additionally, she claims that the ineffectiveness of the remedies is further demonstrated by the continuation of construction works despite the administrative suspension of the Environmental Licence.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts in proceedings concerning the annulment of the Environmental Licence issued on 2 October 2018 sufficiently examine the applicant’s arguments concerning the lawfulness of the Environmental Licence and the Amended Spatial Plan of the Municipality of Ivančna Gorica? 2.     Did the establishment and operation of the Škrjanče Economic Zone in the vicinity of the applicant’s home constitute a violation of the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, §§ 96-104, ECHR 2003-VIII; Udovičić v. Croatia , no. 27310/09, §§ 136-138, 24 April 2014; Moreno Gómez v. Spain , no. 4143/02, §§ 53-56, ECHR 2004-X)? 3.     Did the applicant have an effective possibility to challenge the measures interfering with her rights under Article 8, as required by Article 8 alone (procedural limb) or in conjunction with Article   13 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have at her disposal an effective remedy to challenge the alleged unlawfulness of the Amended Spatial Plan of the Municipality of Ivančna Gorica? In this connection, the Government are invited to clarify whether the construction in the Škrjanče Economic Zone had already started in 2016 despite the environmental licence being issued only in 2018, as alleged by the applicant. If so, what was the basis for the construction and what legal remedies did the applicant have against the ongoing construction? Additionally, the parties are asked to provide information as to how many environmental licences and/or building permits were issued based on the Amended Spatial Plan and in what stages are the related proceedings. In how many of those proceedings is the applicant involved? The parties are asked to clarify whether the relevant construction in the Škrjanče Economic Zone is still ongoing despite the suspension of the effects of the Environmental Licence issued on 2 October 2018. If so, on what basis and what remedies does the applicant have in respect of this issue? 4.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?