54. At this juncture the Court reiterates that the lack of a sufficiently precise and foreseeable statutory provision may be remedied by domestic courts giving a clear and precise interpretation (see Apostolidi and Others, cited above, § 70; and Nacaryan and Deryan, cited above, § 58).
55. However, in the present case there was no statutory provision setting the time-limit for lodging requests to purchase State-owned flats. This lacuna in the law could not be remedied by the practice of the domestic courts.
56. The Court also notes that following the abrogation of the time-limit set by section 20(1) and (2) of the APTSO, it was up to the Croatian Parliament (as the legislature), or the Croatian Government, to set a new time-limit, which they failed to do. The Court agrees with the view expressed by the Constitutional Court that “the non-existence of a time-limit for taking a certain action … cannot be interpreted to the detriment of a party who had to take such action” (see paragraphs 25 and 26 above). In this connection, the Court also reiterates a principle established by its own case-law: that the risk of any mistake made by a State authority must be borne by the State and any errors must not be remedied at the expense of the individual concerned (see Gashi v. Croatia, no. 32457/05, § 40, 13 December 2007; Stolyarova v. Russia, no. 15711/13, § 49, 29 January 2015; and, mutatis mutandis, Radchikov v. Russia, no. 65582/01, § 50, 24 May 2007).
Notă MMB: Caut articole de specializate semnate, eventual, de chiar profesori universitari ce predau drept CEDO, și care să fi tratat lipsa de conformitate a dezlegării prealabile nr. 45/2016 ÎCCJ cu dreptul CEDO mai-sus indicat! Dezlegarea prealabilă nr. 45/2016 e doar un exemplu de dezlegare contrară CEDO, așa că sigur se pot găsi și alte exemple, de altfel suficiente pentru a permite scrierea unui articol de specialitate.
Curtea Europeană a Drepturilor Omului
(Hotărârea din data de 16 februarie 2016, Vijatovic v Croația, CE:ECHR:2016:0216JUD005020013, disponibilă aici)