CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 novembre 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 } .s10AB3CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#222222 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 24 November 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 68477/17 Aleksandra VEKIĆ against Croatia lodged on 12 September 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Aleksandra Vekić, is a Croatian and Swiss national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Umag. She is represented before the Court by Mr S. Poldan, a lawyer practising in Rijeka. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 11 November 2016 the applicant, a company director, was indicted in the Pula-Pola County Court ( Županijski sud u Puli-Pola ) on charges of economic crimes in relation to allegedly having acquired ownership of several real-estates for herself and the company ORNA d.o.o. without paying their full commercial value. It was alleged that the applicant had unlawfully obtained in total 10,787,992 Croatian kunas (HRK) (approximately 1,388,415.96 euros (EUR)) for herself, and HRK 3,455,240 (approximately EUR 449,901.96 ) for the company ORNA d.o.o.   On the same day, acting upon the request of the State Attorney’s Office which was never forwarded to the defence, the Pula-Pola County Court seized the real-estates at issue and froze the applicant’s bank accounts in order to secure the enforcement of a possible confiscation order. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court arguing, inter alia , that the request of the State Attorney’s Office for seizure order was never forwarded to the defence and that the measure was disproportionate to any potential confiscation order that might be served on her. On 13 December 2016 the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) upheld the Pula-Pola County Court’s seizure order in respect of the applicant and quashed it in respect of the company ORNA d.o.o. The Supreme Court held that the seizure in respect of the applicant was proportionate in view of a possibility of the imposition of a confiscation order, without giving any further assessment. The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 2 March 2017 on the grounds that the lower courts had not decided on any of the applicant’s rights or obligations or any criminal charge against her. This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 17 March 2017. Meanwhile, on 21 December 2016 the Pula-Pola County Court ordered seizure of real-estates in respect of the company ORNA d.o.o. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court reiterating that the request of the State Attorney’s Office for seizure order was never forwarded to the defence and that the measure was disproportionate to any potential confiscation order that might be served on her. On 23 January 2017 the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal. Subsequently the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint which is still pending before the Constitutional Court. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that the seizure order was not proportionate in the circumstances of the case and that she did not have access to an effective procedure to challenge it. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES In respect of the seizure of the applicant’s property in the course of the criminal proceedings against her, 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 or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? 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?