Communicated on 22 February 2018

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 6919/16 Mihajla MILETIĆ against Croatia lodged on 26 January 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the deprivation of property stemming from the Government ’ s decision on restructuring and recovery of a commercial bank whereby the bank ’ s shareholders, including the applicant, were deprived of their shares, and the lack of access to court in that respect. The applicant also complains that the Constitutional Court ’ s decision was not adequately reasoned because the main arguments in her constitutional complaint were not addressed. The case is similar to the cases of Project-Trade d.o.o . v. Croatia , no. 1920/14 and Scott Bader d.o.o . v. Croatia , nos. 46998/15 and 24312/16, communicated to the Government on 1 February and 16 June 2017, respectively.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have access to court, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given that neither the Constitutional Court nor the commercial courts examined or were competent to examine whether the Government ’ s decision of 23 September 1999 was compatible with the Constitution, or otherwise justified, an issue directly decisive for the outcome of the applicant ’ s civil action (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria , no. 49429/99, §§ 98-166, ECHR 2005 XII (extracts))?

2. Did the Constitutional Court, when deciding on the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint, examine the alleged violations of Article 48 § 1, Article 49 § 4 and Article 50 of the Croatian Constitution? If not, was the Constitutional Court ’ s decision of 9 July 2015 sufficiently reasoned, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Lăcătuş and Others v. Romania , no. 12694/04 , § 102, 13 November 2012; Jaćimović v. Croatia , no. 22688/09 , § 52, 31 October 2013 ; and Răchită v. Romania , no. 15987/09, § 57, 17 May 2016)?

3. Has the applicant been deprived of her shares in violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria , no. 49429/99, §§ 132-140, ECHR 2005 XII (extracts))?