CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 février 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 16 February 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 80852/17 Pavo JELIĆ against Croatia lodged on 22 November 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative proceedings in which the applicant, an agriculturist, was ordered to pay some 70,000 euros of excise duty ( trošarina ) on account of unauthorised use of a particular type of oil. In particular, the authorities found that instead of using the oil exclusively for agricultural purposes, the applicant had also used it to heat his home and office. The relevant law offers two options for calculating the amount of excise duty: by multiplying the volume of the tank in which the oil is found by one-hundred or by multiplying the amount of oil used for unauthorised purposes by ten. As regards the applicant, the first method was used. Enforcement proceedings are currently pending against the applicant. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, that the amount of excise duty he was ordered to pay was disproportionate to the severity of the infringement and imposed an excessive burden on him. His complaint falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Is the decision of the domestic authorities ordering the applicant to pay the excise duty in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, is the amount of excise duty the applicant was ordered to pay proportionate to the severity of the infringement and did not impose an excessive burden on him (see Gabrić v.   Croatia , no. 9702/04, 5 February 2009; Grifhorst v. France , no. 28336/02, 26 February 2009; Moon v. France , no. 39973/03, 9 July 2009; and Boljević v. Croatia , no. 43492/11, 31 January 2017)?