CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 September 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 4760/23 Dragan KOVAČEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 19 January 2023 communicated on 9 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the freezing of the applicant’s bank account in relation to pending criminal proceedings against him, on charges of having traded in influence. Namely, in order to secure the enforcement of possible confiscation of unlawful pecuniary gain, the domestic courts adopted and periodically extended the freezing order relying on, inter alia , Article 78 of the Croatian Penal Code which provides for extended confiscation, i.e., the possibility to confiscate as the proceeds of crime any property which is disproportionate in value to the defendant’s lawful income. The investigating judge’s decision of 25 March 2022 extending the freezing order in respect of his bank account was adopted before the previous decision on extension had become final. Concurrently with the proceedings in which the applicant’s bank account was frozen – and in relation to the same set of criminal proceedings against him – the domestic courts allegedly also ordered the seizure of his remaining property (including his real estates and shares, and the property of third persons connected to him, as well as the freezing of his other bank accounts). The applicant’s request that the two sets of proceedings concerning the seizure of property be joined, and that the seizure order be limited to property corresponding to the amount he had allegedly gained by the commission of the offence in question, has remained without a reply by the authorities. Meanwhile, by a decision of 18 January 2023, the High Criminal Court quashed a first-instance court’s decision of 13 October 2022 which had extended for a further period the freezing of the applicant’s bank account. It found that the lower court had failed to establish the facts relevant for assessing the proportionality of the freezing order. In particular, it noted that the value of the applicant’s remaining property and that of the third parties connected to him, which had been seized in the concurrent set of proceedings, should have been taken into account. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that, when extending the freezing order in respect of his bank account, the domestic courts failed to assess whether the value of the frozen assets corresponded to the possible confiscation claim. He further complains that the procedural grounds for extending the freezing order of his bank account by a decision of 25 March 2022 were not met. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the freezing of the applicant’s bank account in the course of the criminal proceedings against him amount to an interference with his peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     If so, was that interference lawful? In particular, were the procedural grounds for extending the freezing order by a decision of 25 March 2022 met? In this respect, the parties are invited to submit references to the relevant domestic provisions and judicial practice, where available.   3.     Was the freezing order necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties?   4.     Did the interference in the present case impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos.   1828/06 and 2 others, §§ 292-93 and 300, 28 June 2018; Džinić v.   Croatia , no. 38359/13, §§ 67-81, 17 May 2016; and Melandri v.   San   Marino , no.   25189/21, § 64, 12 September 2024)? In particular, having regard to the seizure of the applicant’s property, and that of third persons connected to him, in two concurrent sets of proceedings, did the domestic courts assess whether the total value of the seized property corresponded to the possible confiscation claim?