Published on 17 February 2025
 
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 15086/23
Marko DEBELIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 28 March 2023
communicated on 29 January 2025
 
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns civil proceedings in which the State sought that a sale and purchase agreement, which the applicant had concluded with a third party in 1999 and thereby became the owner a plot of land, be declared null and void and that he be deleted from the land register as its owner.
The first- and second- instance courts ruled in favour of the applicant and dismissed the State’s civil action. However, following an extraordinary appeal on points of law by the State, the Supreme Court found that the case concerned a sale of agricultural land which in 1991 became State-owned ex lege, reversing therefore the lower courts’ judgments and ruling for the State. In so deciding it relied on the Agricultural Land Act – legislation not relied on or discussed by the parties.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the proceedings. Furthermore, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, he complains that he was deprived of his property unlawfully and in an arbitrary manner.
 
 
 
 
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of adversarial proceedings respected when the Supreme Court based its judgment of 11 November 2020 on the Agricultural Land Act, legislation not relied on or discussed by the parties (see Clinique des Acacias and Others v. France, nos. 65399/01 and 3 others, §§ 36-43, 13 October 2005; Čepek v. the Czech Republic, no. 9815/10, §§ 44-61, 5 September 2013; and Alexe v. Romania, no. 66522/09, §§ 33-44, 3 May 2016)?
 
2.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, has that interference been in compliance with the requirements of that Article (see, for example, Project‑Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 1920/14, § 82, 19 November 2020, and Gashi v. Croatia, no. 32457/05, §§ 27-43, 13 December 2007)?