CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 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 } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 19 June 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 50014/15 Zvonimir PERŠA against Croatia lodged on 2 October 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Zvonimir Perša, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Zagreb. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In the period between 1990 and 1998 the applicant deposited his savings with a company called Savings and Loan Office of the Sutla Agricultural Cooperative. On 9 May 1998 the company’s accounts were frozen because of unpaid debts. On 2 July 1998 the financial police inspected the company’s financial dealings and found numerous breaches of the relevant legislation in its operation. On 6 May 2005 the Zagreb Commercial Court opened and immediately closed the summary bankruptcy proceedings against the company because its funds were insufficient to cover even the costs of those proceedings. Shortly afterwards the company was removed from the register of commercial companies. Consequently, the applicant lost his savings. On 7 July 2009 the applicant brought a civil action against the State before the Zagreb Civil Municipal Court. He argued that the State was liable for his losses because it had failed to supervise the company’s activities in the period before 2 July 1998. Had it done so, he would not have deposited his savings with the company. The Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant was also ordered to pay the State 15,000   Croatian kunas (HRK – about 2,000 euros (EUR)) in costs, comprising the fees chargeable for the State’s representation by the State Attorney’s Office. The first-instance judgment was upheld by the Zagreb County Court on 12 October 2010. The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court on the grounds that a decision of the Supreme Court was necessary to resolve substantive and procedural questions important for ensuring equal application of laws and the equality of citizens. On 13 May 2014 the appeal on points of law was dismissed. The national courts found that even though there had been certain irregularities in the operation of the relevant State authorities responsible for supervising the company’s activities, there had not been a sufficiently clear causal link between those irregularities and the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant – who himself had not been sufficiently cautious when depositing his savings – so as to render the State liable for its losses. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 19   March 2015. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the sum of costs that he had been ordered to pay to the State had been in breach of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In respect of the costs that the applicant was ordered to pay to the State, has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   2.     If so, was the interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   3.     If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Cindrić and   Bešlić v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016) so that the following criteria were satisfied: (1)     that the State was represented by the State Attorney’s Office and the costs of the State’s representation were calculated in an amount equal to a lawyer’s fee; (2)     that the applicant’s claim before the national courts was not devoid of any substance or manifestly unreasonable; (3)     in the light of the applicant’s individual financial situation, that the order to bear the costs at issue was a significant financial burden on him?