CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2024

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; 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 5 February 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 37405/22 Robert ŠEPINSKI against Croatia lodged on 26 July 2022 communicated on 17 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s punishment in minor-offence proceedings for unauthorised use of a special state-supported type of oil and the subsequent imposition in administrative proceedings of excise duty for the use of that oil increased one hundred times. In particular, the applicant was fined 4,200 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 560 euros (EUR)) in minor-offence proceedings for having used blue-tinted oil for a purpose which was not allowed by the Excise Duties Act, and subsequently ordered to pay excise duty on that oil increased one hundred times, in the amount of HRK 114,000 (some EUR 15,130). The applicant complains, relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, of a violation of his right not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence. Further to this, he complains under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention that the amount of excise duty he had been ordered to pay was disproportionate to the severity of the infringement and imposed an excessive burden on him.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been tried and punished twice for the same offence, as prohibited by Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (see   Milošević v. Croatia , no.   12022/16, §§ 27-43, 31 August 2021)?   2.     Is the decision of the domestic authorities ordering the applicant to pay the excise duty in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, is the amount of excise duty the applicant was ordered to pay proportionate to the severity of the infringement and did not impose an excessive burden on him (see S.C. Zorina International S.R.L. v. Romania , no.   15553/15, §§   40-44, 27 June 2023)?