Published on 20 July 2026
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 2031/24
STEČAJNA MASA IZA EUROPSKI OBALNI AVIOPRIJEVOZNIK D.O.O. U STEČAJU
against Croatia
lodged on 11 January 2024
communicated on 30 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant company is a bankruptcy estate of a wound-up commercial company Europski obalni avioprijevoznik d.o.o. u stečaju (“ECA”), which had conducted its business activities in the field of civil aviation but was subsequently deleted from the register of commercial companies after the conclusion of bankruptcy proceedings. While ECA no longer existed as a legal entity thereafter, its undistributed assets formed the bankruptcy estate, likewise registered in the register of commercial companies and represented by the bankruptcy administrator, in the name and on behalf of which proceedings could have been conducted for the purpose of collecting assets that belonged to it.
The application concerns the administrative proceedings in which the Civil Aviation Agency (“the Agency”) imposed on ECA administrative sanctions in the form of temporary seizure of its certificates and licenses for failure to comply with safety requirements.
ECA challenged the lawfulness of that decision in the administrative courts, claiming also compensation for the damage it had allegedly incurred in that regard (loss of profits and, consequently, its bankruptcy) to no avail. Its request that the first-instance court obtain an expert report in relation to the seriousness of the irregularities that had been established by the Agency, as well as its request that five expert reports that it had obtained of its own motion be included in the case file and that the experts who had prepared them be examined as witnesses, were all dismissed.
ECA, which was undergoing bankruptcy proceedings at the time, lodged a constitutional complaint against the administrative courts’ judgments but ceased to exist shortly thereafter. The Constitutional Court then discontinued the proceedings, on the grounds that, following the completion of the bankruptcy proceedings, ECA ceased to exist. Having received its decision, the applicant company asked that it be set aside and that the proceedings be continued with the applicant company as the petitioner, to no avail.
The applicant company submits that it is ECA’s universal successor and complains, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, as well as under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, about the Constitutional Court’s decision to discontinue the proceedings before it, thereby preventing ECA (and thus the applicant company) from obtaining compensation for the damage it had allegedly incurred on the basis of the Agency’s decision. Moreover, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, it complains about the unfairness of the administrative proceedings, in that the administrative courts refused to allow ECA’s request for an independent expert opinion and that they relied solely on the opinion of the Agency. Lastly, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, it complains that the Agency’s decision to seize ECA’s licences was adopted in unfair administrative proceedings and brought about ECA’s loss of profits and subsequent bankruptcy, in breach of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the Constitutional Court’s decision to discontinue the proceedings in question contrary to the applicant company’s right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-86, 5 April 2018; Dos Santos Calado and Others v. Portugal, nos. 55997/14 and 3 others, §§ 111-17, 31 March 2020; The Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 83, Series A no. 301-A; and, mutatis mutandis, Lupaş and Others v. Romania, nos. 1434/02 and 2 others, §§ 62-67, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts)); and/or its right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?
2. Was the Constitutional Court’s decision to discontinue the proceedings in question contrary to the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 1920/14, § 82, 19 November 2020)?
3. Were the administrative proceedings concerning imposition of sanctions on ECA fair as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards ECA’s ability to challenge the Agency’s findings (see Letinčić v. Croatia, no. 7183/11, §§ 46-51, 3 May 2016)?
4. Was the Agency’s decision to impose sanctions on ECA in breach of the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, §§ 63-79, ECHR 2008, and, mutatis mutandis, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, §§ 178-79, ECHR 2012)?