CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super }   Communicated on 9 July 2018   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 50743/16 and 50748/16 Dragan RUKAVINA against Croatia and AMEC RIJEKATEKSTIL d.o.o. against Croatia lodged on 24 August 2016 and 28 April 2016 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The second applicant is a company and the first applicant is its director. They complain of unforeseeable conviction in the minor offences proceedings related to the control of foreign currency investments. In particular, on 24 February 2015 the applicants were convicted by a Minor Offences Panel of the Financial Inspectorate for failing to provide evidence about the ownership of an offshore company from which they had received a loan in foreign currency, as required under section 49(6) of the Foreign Currency Act ( Zakon o deviznom poslovanju ). The applicants challenged this decision before the High Minor Offences Court, arguing that the relevant provision of the Foreign Currency Act proscribed a failure to provide information, and not evidence, of the ownership of an offshore business partner. They stressed that in their case there had been no doubt that they had provided information about the owner of their business partner but it had been impossible for them to provide specific evidence of his ownership and this had not been required under section 49(6) of the Foreign Currency Act. The High Minor Offences Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal on the grounds that this was simply a terminological matter and that their conviction was compatible with the essence of the offence under the Foreign Currency Act. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicants’ failure to provide evidence about the ownership of the offshore company from which they had received a loan in foreign currency run counter to section 49(6) of the Foreign Currency Act and thus constituted an offence under national law at the time when it was committed, as envisaged by Article 7 of the Convention?   APPENDIX   Application no 50743/16   1.     Dragan RUKAVINA is a Croatian national who was born in 1960, lives in Rijeka and is represented by Mr Z. Vukić, a lawyer practising in Rijeka.   Application no 50748/16   2.     AMEC RIJEKATEKSTIL D.O.O. is a company with a seat in Rijeka, and is represented by Mr Z. Vukić, a lawyer practising in Rijeka.