CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mai 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Communicated on 27 May 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 67644/12 Damir DAGOSTIN against Croatia lodged on 5 October 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Damir Dagostin, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Pazin. He is represented before the Court by Ms   R.   Trivić, 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 27 August 2009 the applicant, together with two other individuals, attempted to cross Croatian-Slovenian border while carrying 3,350 euros (EUR) and 11,200 United States dollars (USD). He was stopped by customs officers, who in the course of their routine checks found the money in question. The customs officers also found that the other two individuals had a certain amount of money with them. The money was seized and the Customs Administration instituted minor offences proceedings against the applicant with the Financial Inspectorate of the Ministry of Finance ( Ministarstvo financija, Financijski inspektorat ) on charges of failing to declare cash in amounts of EUR 3,000 or more, a minor offence under the foreign currency fluctuation and money laundering legislation. The other two individuals were also charged with similar minor offences. On 6 November 2009 the Financial Inspectorate found the applicant and the two other persons guilty as charged. The applicant was fined 5,000   Croatian kunas (HRK) and the entire amount of money exceeding EUR 3,000 was confiscated from him. The applicant and the two other individuals appealed to the High Minor Offences Court ( Visoki prekršajni sud Republike Hrvatske ), challenging their conviction and the confiscation. On 20 January 2010 the High Minor Offences Court quashed the applicant’s conviction and ordered a retrial on the grounds that there were procedural flaws in the first-instance decision. It also acquitted the two other individuals on the grounds that in the meantime a more lenient law had entered into force, which meant they were no longer liable for the offences with which they had been charged. In the resumed proceedings before the Financial Inspectorate the applicant was again found guilty, fined HRK 5,000 and had the EUR 350 and USD 11,200 confiscated. The applicant appealed, but on 16 March 2011 the High Minor Offences Court upheld his conviction. The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) challenging the decisions of the lower courts, but on 3 May 2012 the court declared it inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. Its decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 18 May 2012. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about the confiscation of his property.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?   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)?