CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 septembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 21 October 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12432/22 Dražen RADELIĆ against Croatia lodged on 24 February 2022 communicated on 25 October 2022 and 30 September 2024   The Subject matter of the case and Questions to the parties is available in HUDOC.           QUESTIONS     1.     Does the confiscation measure imposed on the applicant in the present case constitute a “penalty” within the meaning of Article   7 of the Convention (see   G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2   others, §§   210-233, 28 June 2018; Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, §§   81 ‑ 90, ECHR 2013; and Welch v. the United Kingdom , 9 February 1995, §§ 27-35, Series A no. 307-A)? 2.     Does Croatian criminal law have a specific provision allowing the proceeds of crime to be confiscated from the perpetrator if they were acquired for the benefit of another individual or legal entity? 3.     If there is no such provision, was the application of section 252(5) of the Commercial Companies Act by the domestic courts in the present case, and the resultant confiscation of the proceeds of crime from the applicant himself, foreseeable and thus in compliance with Article 7 of the Convention (see, for example, Del Río Prada , cited above, §§ 91-93)? More specifically, was it in line with the requirement that the provisions of the criminal law must not be extensively construed to an accused’s detriment, for instance by analogy (see, for example, Del   Río Prada , cited above, § 78, and Başkaya and Okçuoğlu v. Turkey [GC], nos.   23536/94 and 24408/94, §§ 42-43, ECHR   1999-IV)?