Communicated on 30 June 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 39307/11 Izabel SKOKANDIĆ against Croatia lodged on 7 June 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Izabel Skokandić , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Žrnovo . She is represented before the Court by Mr I. Surjan , a lawyer practising in Zagreb .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 19 April 2004 the applicant applied before the Kor č ula Office of the Dubrovnik State Administration ( Ured državne uprave u Dubrova č ko-neretvanskoj ž upaniji, Ispostava u Kor č uli ) for a permit for the construction of her house in Žrnovica .

On 3 August 2004 the applicant was granted a construction permit, and this decision became final on 26 August 2004.

During the construction work, on 24 May 2005, a construction inspector of the Ministry of Ecology, Spatial Planning and Construction ( Ministarstvo za š tite okoli š a, prostornog ure đ enja i graditeljstva : hereinafter: the “Ministry”) carried out an on-site inspection and, after examining the construction permit, found no irregularities in the construction work.

On 17 August 2005, based on its supervisory powers, the Ministry revoked the applicant ’ s construction permit on the grounds that the construction permit was not issued in accordance with the substantive provisions of the Construction Act ( Zakon o gradnji ).

The applicant challenged this decision before the Administrative Court ( Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 26 September 2006 arguing that she had lawfully obtained a construction permit.

On 16 May 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s administrative action endorsing the reasoning of the Ministry.

On 5 October 2007 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) contending that by the revocation of the construction permit she had been made to bear a disproportionate individual burden.

On 25 November 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant on 9 December 2010.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that by the revocation of a construction permit for the construction of her house her property became precarious

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning 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 or to secure the payment of taxes or o ther contributions or penalties ?

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?]

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