CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 18510/22 ELCOMAT D.O.O. against Croatia lodged on 6 April 2022 communicated on 12 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic authorities’ refusal to reimburse the applicant company’s costs of administrative proceedings. In particular, the tax authorities ordered the applicant company to pay a tax debt of 386,159.61 Croatian kunas (HRK), i.e. some 51,252 euros (EUR), consisting of unpaid taxes and the accrued statutory default interest. The applicant company hired an advocate and eventually succeeded in the judicial review proceedings leading ultimately to the tax authorities’ finding that the applicant company had no unpaid taxes. However, the applicant company’s claim for costs of proceedings amounting to HRK 90,745, i.e. some EUR   12,044, was dismissed with an explanation that the relevant legislation did not provide for reimbursement of fees for legal representation by an advocate in administrative proceedings. The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the impossibility to recoup the costs of its legal representation.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Supreme Court’s decision no. U-zpz-44/2016 of 14 July 2021 and the High Administrative Court’s decision no. Usž-4003/21 of 20 February 2022, did the applicant company’s claim to recoup the costs of the administrative proceedings have a sufficient basis in national law, to qualify as a “possession” protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, was the domestic authorities’ refusal to award those costs to the applicant company in breach of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, guaranteed by that Article?   2.     Alternatively, did the domestic authorities’ decision ordering the applicant company to pay the tax debt constitute an interference with its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions and if so, was the domestic authorities’ refusal to award it the costs of the administrative proceedings in breach of its right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Zustović v. Croatia , no. 27903/15, §§   96-111, 22 April 2021, and Černius and Rinkevičius v. Lithuania , nos.   73579/17 and 14620/18, §§   65-74, 18 February 2020) and/or in breach of the positive obligations of the respondent State under the latter Article?