CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 novembre 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 19 November 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 65180/17 Rajko LUKIĆ against Croatia lodged on 30 August 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 1991 the Croatian army requisitioned two vehicles owned by the applicant’s late father for military purposes. The Croatian army was obliged to return the vehicles once it no longer needed them. In the subsequent civil proceedings against the State the domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s claim to return him the vehicles on the grounds that he had failed to prove that they had still existed and that they had been in the possession of the State. The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about the domestic courts’ refusal to return him the vehicles contending that the requirement to prove that they still existed and were in the State’s possession imposed an excessive burden on him. He also complains about having to pay costs of proceedings to the State in the amount of 16,875   Croatian kunas. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present case? In particular, did the proceedings in question comply with the procedural obligations under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (see Hentrich v. France , 22 September 1994, § 49, Series A no.   296 ‑ A; Bruncrona v. Finland , no. 41673/98, § 69, 16   November 2004 and Zafranas v. Greece , no. 4056/08, § 36, 4 October 2011)?