Communicated on 9 February 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 40581/12 Petar MATAS against Croatia lodged on 14 June 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Petar Matas , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Split. He is represented before the Court by Ms M. Matas , a lawyer practising in Split.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is the owner of a commercial building in Split.

On 28 March 2003 the Split Department for Conservation of Cultural Heritage ( Ministarstvo kulture , Uprava za za š titu kulturne ba š tine , Konzervatorski odjel u Splitu ; hereinafter: the Split Department) ordered the measure of preventive protection of cultural heritage with regard to the applicant ’ s commercial building, pending the final evaluation of its cultural value. It explained that the building appeared to be a rare example of early industrial architecture in Split and therefore this warranted the measure limitation of its use by the applicant.

Under section 10 of the Protection and Preservation of Cultural Heritage Act ( Zakon o za š titi i o č uvanju kulturnih dobara ; Official Gazette, no. 69/1999; hereinafter: the Protection of Heritage Act) this measure was applied for the period of three years, and under section 11 of the Protection of Heritage Act it implied the same protection as the final declaration of cultural value of an object.

The measure was also duly registered in the land registry.

After the expiry of the period of three years the applicant requested that the measure be lifted in the land registry.

On 10 January 2007 the Split Department again ordered the measure of preventive protection of cultural heritage with regard to the applicant ’ s commercial building reiterating the same grounds as in its previous decision.

The measure was registered in the land registry but the applicant was not informed of its application until he inquired on the status of his property in the land registry.

On 16 October 2007 the applicant challenged the decision of the Split Department of 10 January 2007 before the Ministry of Culture ( Ministarstvo kulture ) arguing, in particular, that the maximum period of the application of measure of preventive protection was three years.

On 31 January 2008 the Ministry of Culture dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal as ill-founded on the grounds that there was nothing in the law preventing the competent authority to apply the measure twice for the periods of three years.

The applicant then lodged an administrative action in the Administrative Court ( Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ) challenging lawfulness and reasonableness of the application of measure of preventive protection, pointing out to the passivity of the competent authorities to finally resolve the matter.

On 18 May 2011 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s administrative action as ill-founded endorsing the reasoning of the lower bodies.

On 10 September 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) complaining about a violation of his property rights with regard to allegedly unlawful and unreasonable application of measure of preventive protection on his property.

On 14 December 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded.

The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant ’ s representative on 18 January 2012.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about an allegedly unlawful and unreasonable restriction of his property rights of a commercial building by the application of measures of preventive protection of cultural heritage.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meani ng of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

2. If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?

3. In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V; and Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden , 23 September 1982, § 73, Series A no. 52)?

The Government are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents related to the applicant ’ s case.