CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 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 26 November 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 64806/16 Željka MAROSLAVAC against Croatia lodged on 7 November 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the tax-related administrative proceedings in which the applicant, a public notary, was ordered to pay a value added tax (VAT) for the period between 1 January 2003 and 31 May 2007, profit tax for the period between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2006, and income tax for the period between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2005. The tax assessment was based on the tax inspection of the applicant’s financial activities which was conducted over a period of four months. The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that she was unable to effectively participate in establishing her obligation to pay income tax given that the order extending the tax inspection to income tax had been served to her only one day before the tax inspection ended. She also complains that the tax inspection took into account her financial activities in 2001 and 2002 and that she was ordered to pay profit tax for that period, even though the statutory limitation period for doing so had expired. She complains that the domestic authorities never properly addressed her complaints in that respect. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions in the form of the decision by the domestic authorities ordering her to pay taxes in accordance with the conditions provided for by law as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia , no.   14902/04, §§ 558-575, 20 September 2011)?   2.     If the interference was lawful, did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant? In particular, did the tax-related administrative proceedings in the applicant’s case 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)?