[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"settings":3,"blog-meta-en":70,"blog-kada-cesta-pojede-privatno-zemljiste-pravo-vlasnika-na-naknadu-ne-moze-zastarjeti-prije-nego-sto-bude-ostvareno-en":84},{"siteName":4,"siteUrl":5,"defaultLocale":6,"contact":7,"social":14,"footer":16,"navigation":20,"mapEmbedUrl":47,"contactPresets":48},"Odvjetnički ured Luka Mrkić","https://lukamrkic.hr","hr",{"phones":8,"email":11,"address":12,"addressLink":13},[9,10],"+385 23 701 888","+385 95 7009 342","odvjetnik@lukamrkic.hr","Zrinsko-Frankopanska 38, 23000 Zadar, Hrvatska","https://maps.google.com/?q=Zrinsko-Frankopanska+38+Zadar",{"linkedin":15,"facebook":15,"instagram":15},"",{"legalText":17,"copyrightText":18,"creditText":19},"Odvjetnički ured Luka Mrkić pruža visokokvalitetne pravne usluge s naglaskom na individualni pristup svakom klijentu.","© 2025 Odvjetnički ured Luka Mrkić. Sva prava pridržana.","Web by CodeRed",{"main":21,"footer":41},[22,25,28,32,35,38],{"label":23,"url":24},"Početna","/",{"label":26,"url":27},"O nama","/o-nama",{"label":29,"url":30,"children":31},"Područja prakse","/podrucja-prakse",[],{"label":33,"url":34},"Naš tim","/nas-tim",{"label":36,"url":37},"Objave","/objave",{"label":39,"url":40},"Kontakt","/kontakt",[42,43,44,45,46],{"label":26,"url":27},{"label":29,"url":30},{"label":33,"url":34},{"label":36,"url":37},{"label":39,"url":40},"https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m18!1m12!1m3!1d2879.5!2d15.2388472!3d44.1076802!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!3m3!1m2!1s0x4761fa8a60de4bed%3A0x1265bebba2680f68!2sUl.%20Zrinsko%20Frankopanska%2038%2C%2023000%2C%20Zadar!5e0!3m2!1sen!2shr!4v1706300000000!5m2!1sen!2shr",{"hr":49,"en":56,"de":63},{"meeting":50,"email":53},{"subject":51,"message":52},"Zahtjev za online sastanak","Poštovani,\n\nŽelio/željela bih dogovoriti online sastanak radi pravnog savjetovanja.\n\nDostupan/dostupna sam putem platforme Zoom ili Microsoft Teams.\nPreferirana vremena: [unesite okvirno vrijeme dostupnosti]\n\nKratki opis predmeta:\n[opišite ukratko o čemu se radi]\n\nS poštovanjem,",{"subject":54,"message":55},"Upit za pravno savjetovanje","Poštovani,\n\nObraćam Vam se s upitom vezanim za:\n[opišite predmet upita]\n\nOsnovne informacije:\n[navedite relevantne podatke]\n\nMolim Vas za povratnu informaciju.\n\nS poštovanjem,",{"meeting":57,"email":60},{"subject":58,"message":59},"Online meeting request","Dear Sir/Madam,\n\nI would like to schedule an online meeting for legal counseling.\n\nI am available via Zoom or Microsoft Teams.\nPreferred times: [enter your approximate availability]\n\nBrief description of the matter:\n[briefly describe what it is about]\n\nKind regards,",{"subject":61,"message":62},"Legal counseling inquiry","Dear Sir/Madam,\n\nI am contacting you regarding:\n[describe the subject of your inquiry]\n\nBasic information:\n[provide relevant details]\n\nI look forward to your response.\n\nKind regards,",{"meeting":64,"email":67},{"subject":65,"message":66},"Anfrage für Online-Meeting","Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,\n\nich möchte ein Online-Meeting zur Rechtsberatung vereinbaren.\n\nIch bin über Zoom oder Microsoft Teams erreichbar.\nBevorzugte Zeiten: [geben Sie Ihre ungefähre Verfügbarkeit an]\n\nKurze Beschreibung der Angelegenheit:\n[beschreiben Sie kurz, worum es geht]\n\nMit freundlichen Grüßen,",{"subject":68,"message":69},"Anfrage zur Rechtsberatung","Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,\n\nich wende mich an Sie bezüglich:\n[beschreiben Sie den Gegenstand Ihrer Anfrage]\n\nGrundinformationen:\n[geben Sie relevante Daten an]\n\nIch freue mich auf Ihre Rückmeldung.\n\nMit freundlichen Grüßen,",{"title":71,"subtitle":72,"seo":73,"categories":77},"Blog","Latest news, publications and professional analyses from the field of law.",{"title":74,"description":75,"ogImage":76},"Blog | Law Office Luka Mrkić","Latest legal news, publications and professional analyses. Law Office Luka Mrkić, Zadar, Croatia.","/assets/og-blog.jpg",[78,81],{"id":79,"label":80},"novosti","News",{"id":82,"label":83},"publikacije","Publications",{"id":85,"slug":86,"title":87,"excerpt":88,"content":90,"category":79,"author":173,"publishedAt":174,"featuredImage":175,"tags":176,"seo":177,"published":180},"kada-cesta-pojede-privatno-zemljiste-pravo-vlasnika-na-naknadu","kada-cesta-pojede-privatno-zemljiste-pravo-vlasnika-na-naknadu-ne-moze-zastarjeti-prije-nego-sto-bude-ostvareno","When a road “consumes” private land – the owner’s right to compensation",[89],"The decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia represents an important contribution to the development of domestic constitutional case law concerning the protection of property rights in situations of so-called de facto expropriation. These are cases in which private land is used and permanently re-designated for public infrastructure without the implementation of formal expropriation proceedings, while the owner is either left without compensation or is denied it through procedural objections, particularly limitation periods (statute of limitations).",[91,94,96,98,99,101,103,105,107,109,111,113,115,117,119,121,128,130,131,133,135,137,142,144,145,147,149,151,153,155,157,163,164,166,168,170,172],{"type":92,"text":93},"paragraph","\u003Cstrong>When a Road “Consumes” Private Land: The Owner’s Right to Compensation Cannot Become Time-Barred Before It Has Been Realised – Analysis of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia U-III-3726/2021\u003C/strong>",{"type":92,"text":95},"\u003Cstrong> \u003C/strong>",{"type":92,"text":97},"\u003Cstrong>Commentary on Constitutional Protection of Property Owners in Cases of Public Infrastructure Construction without Formal Expropriation\u003C/strong>",{"type":92,"text":89},{"type":92,"text":100}," ",{"type":92,"text":102},"\u003Cstrong>Factual Background and Legal Issue\u003C/strong>",{"type":92,"text":104},"In the present case, a road was constructed on privately owned land without prior expropriation proceedings. Following the entry into force of the Roads Act, the property in question became an unclassified public road and thus public property in the ownership of the local self-government unit.",{"type":92,"text":106},"The owner, after an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the matter amicably with the City of Zagreb, initiated court proceedings seeking compensation equal to the market value of the land. While the court of first instance upheld the claim, the appellate court dismissed it on the grounds of limitation, holding that the limitation period began to run at the moment the road was constructed, i.e. at the time when the owner could no longer request restitution of the property.",{"type":92,"text":108},"This resulted in a legally problematic situation in which the owner simultaneously lost the property, could not recover it, and was subsequently also denied compensation.",{"type":92,"text":110},"\u003Cstrong>Constitutional Framework for Property Protection\u003C/strong>",{"type":92,"text":112},"The Constitutional Court relied on Articles 48 and 50 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, which guarantee the right to property but allow its restriction or deprivation solely in the public interest and subject to payment of compensation at market value.",{"type":92,"text":114},"The Court emphasized that these two constitutional guarantees must be interpreted cumulatively: legality and public interest alone are insufficient if effective and real compensation is not ensured.",{"type":92,"text":116},"In this context, the Court stressed that the constitutional requirement of fair compensation must not be emptied of substance through procedural rules such as limitation periods, in a way that would lead to de facto deprivation of property without compensation.",{"type":92,"text":118},"\u003Cstrong>De Facto Expropriation as a Constitutional Category\u003C/strong>",{"type":92,"text":120},"A key contribution of the decision lies in the clear acceptance of the concept of de facto expropriation. Although no formal expropriation procedure was carried out, the effects on the owner were identical:",{"type":122,"style":123,"items":124},"list","bullet",[125,126,127],"permanent loss of the ability to use the property,","impossibility of restitution due to public designation,","registration of the land as public property of the local self-government unit.",{"type":92,"text":129},"The Court held that such a situation produces legal effects equivalent to full expropriation under Article 33 of the Ownership and Other Proprietary Rights Act, which automatically triggers an obligation to pay compensation.",{"type":92,"text":100},{"type":92,"text":132},"\u003Cstrong>Criticism of the Application of Limitation Periods\u003C/strong>",{"type":92,"text":134},"The Constitutional Court particularly criticised the appellate court’s approach, which linked the limitation period to the moment of road construction.",{"type":92,"text":136},"According to the Court, such an interpretation disregards the constitutional dimension of property rights because it:",{"type":122,"style":123,"items":138},[139,140,141],"ignores the fact that the owner often cannot clearly identify the moment of deprivation until the public-law regime is established,","allows public authorities to benefit from their own unlawful conduct (construction without expropriation),","results in a situation where compensation cannot be obtained at all.",{"type":92,"text":143},"The Court emphasised that limitation rules must not become an instrument for indirectly legitimising deprivation of property without compensation.",{"type":92,"text":100},{"type":92,"text":146},"\u003Cstrong>Role of the European Convention and ECtHR Standards\u003C/strong>",{"type":92,"text":148},"The Constitutional Court also relied on the standards of the European Court of Human Rights, particularly the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, including \u003Cem>Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy\u003C/em>.",{"type":92,"text":150},"That case law established that the State must not profit from unlawful or informal deprivation of property, and that compensation claims cannot be undermined by limitation periods or procedural obstacles.",{"type":92,"text":152},"The Constitutional Court incorporated this standard into the domestic constitutional framework.",{"type":92,"text":154},"\u003Cstrong>Significance of the Decision\u003C/strong>",{"type":92,"text":156},"The decision has far-reaching implications for judicial practice and local self-government units. It confirms several key legal principles:",{"type":122,"style":123,"items":158},[159,160,161,162],"the right to compensation for expropriated land does not depend solely on formal expropriation proceedings,","de facto appropriation and conversion of land into public property creates an obligation to pay compensation,","limitation periods must not be interpreted in a way that leads to complete deprivation of the right to compensation,","courts are obliged to ensure effective constitutional protection of property rights.",{"type":92,"text":100},{"type":92,"text":165},"\u003Cstrong>Conclusion\u003C/strong>",{"type":92,"text":167},"The decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia represents an important step in strengthening legal certainty for property owners affected by public infrastructure projects.",{"type":92,"text":169},"It clearly affirms the principle that public interest can justify deprivation of property only if accompanied by actual and effective compensation at market value. At the same time, the Court limits the possibility of using formalistic application of limitation rules or procedural norms to undermine the essence of the constitutional right to property.",{"type":92,"text":171},"Ultimately, the decision confirms that the legal system must not tolerate situations in which private owners bear the burden of public infrastructure without fair compensation, as this would undermine the very core of constitutional property protection.",{"type":92,"text":100},"Luka                                                               Mrkić","2026-06-04",null,[],{"title":178,"description":179},"Croatian Constitutional Court on de facto expropriation","Analysis of the decision of the Croatian Constitutional Court on de facto expropriation and the property owner’s right to compensation when private land is used",true]