CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juin 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 }   Communicated on 15 June 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 16140/15 Aleksandar BEŽANIĆ against Croatia lodged on 27 March 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative tax proceedings. In 2007 the applicant bought a flat. Since that flat was his first real-estate which he bought with the purpose to live in, the tax authorities exempted him from paying the real-estate purchase tax. In 2009 the applicant married and moved into his wife’s flat. In 2010 the tax authorities quashed their decision on tax exemption and ordered the applicant to pay the real-estate purchase tax. Pursuant to the Real Estate Tax Act, as in force at the material time, taxpayers who were initially exempted from paying taxes for the purchase of their first real-estate could have subsequently been ordered to pay taxes in case they disposed themselves of the impugned real-estate within five years from its purchase, or in case the tax authorities subsequently found that the conditions for granting tax exemption were not met. In the present case, the tax authorities interpreted that provision by holding that it also applied to taxpayers who subsequently changed their residence. However, on 17 July 2015 the Constitutional Court rendered a decision in which it held that the impugned provision cannot be interpreted in a manner that a mere change of residence leads to losing of the tax exemption. The Supreme Court gave a similar ruling in its judgment of 29 October 2014. The applicant alleges violations of Articles 6 § 1, 8, 12 and 13 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 thereto. The application is to be communicated under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has the decision of the domestic authorities ordering the applicant to pay the real-estate purchase tax violated his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in particular having regard to the decision of the Constitutional Court no.   U ‑ III/1311/2014 of 17 July 2015 and the judgment of the Supreme Court no.   U zpz 3/2014-5 of 29 October 2014?