CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 2017

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 }   Communicated on 30 January 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38771/15 Darko MATIJAŠIĆ against Croatia lodged on 29 July 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Darko Matijašić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Motovun. He is represented before the Court by Mr   M.   Zubović, a lawyer practising in Pazin. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was found guilty on charges of minor road traffic offences by a penalty notice of the Istria Police Department ( Policijska uprava istarska ) of 31 May 2013, and by a judgment of the Pula Minor Offences Court ( Prekršajni sud u Puli ) of 6 September 2013 and another judgment of the same court adopted on an unspecified date. On 6 August 2014 the Istria Police Department issued a measure prohibiting the applicant from driving all vehicles of category B (cars, smaller motorcycles and similar vehicles) for a period of twelve months. It relied on the applicant’s above-noted convictions for the minor road traffic offences. This measure was imposed under section 286 (6) of the Road Traffic Safety Act, which provides that the prohibition shall be imposed in respect of a driver who in a period of two years collects in total nine negative points for minor road traffic offences entailing the imposition of three negative points. The applicant appealed against this decision to the High Minor Offences Court ( Visoki prekršajni sud Republike Hrvatske ). He argued, in particular, that the subsequent imposition of the measure at issue for the same conduct for which he had already been found guilty and sentenced amounted to a breach of the ne bis in idem principle. On 15 October 2014 the High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded on the grounds that the application of the measure under section 286 (6) of the Road Traffic Safety Act was not a penalty imposed against the applicant but a measure preventing his future commission of minor road traffic offences. The applicant challenged this decision before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), reiterating his arguments of a breach of the ne bis in idem principle, and on 27 January 2015 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible on the grounds that it was not an individual act against which a constitutional complaint could be lodged. The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant on 16 February 2015. COMPLAINT The applicant complains, under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, of his prosecution and punishment for minor road traffic offences, and the subsequent application of an administrative measure prohibiting him from driving a car concerning the same offences. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been tried and punished twice for the same offence, as prohibited by Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7?   In particular, did the subsequent imposition of the measure prohibiting him from driving a car amount to a “criminal charge” against him, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law (see, for instance, Sergey Zolotukhin v.   Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 53, ECHR 2009)?   If so, did the subsequent application of that measure amounted to a duplication of trial or punishment ( bis ) as proscribed by Article 4 of Protocol   No. 7 (see A and B v. Norway [GC], no. 24130/11, 15 November 2016)?   The Government are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.