CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 21 November 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 10647/17 Ivica DOLIĆ against Croatia lodged on 2 February 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the confiscation of 17,000 euros, which is the entire amount of the money the applicant failed to declare to the Croatian customs authorities when entering Croatia. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the confiscation of the entire amount which the applicant did not declare to the Croatian customs authorities necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, in the circumstances of the present case did that measure strike the requisite fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the applicant’s right of property, and did it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on him, regard being had in particular to the severity of the sanction (see, for example, Gabrić v.   Croatia , no. 9702/04, 5 February 2009; and Boljević v. Croatia , no.   43492/11, 31 January 2017)?