FIRST SECTION
Application no. 38359/13
Antun DŽINIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 3 June 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Antun Džinić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Županja. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Štivić, a lawyer practising in Županja.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 April 2002 the applicant, a businessman, was indicted in the Vukovar County Court (Županijski sud u Vukovaru) on several charges of economic crime.
He was first found guilty on 8 April 2008, but the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) quashed the judgment and ordered a retrial.
In the resumed proceedings the applicant was charged only with two counts of abuse of power and authority. It was alleged that he had unlawfully obtained in total 7,790,835.09 Croatian kunas (HRK) (approximately 1,050,000.00 euros (EUR)).
On 27 June 2012, after the Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2010 (Zakon o oduzimanju imovinske koristi ostvarene kaznenim djelom i prekršaajem, Official Gazette no. 145/2010) had entered into force, the Vukovar County Court seized eleven items of the applicant’s property (eight plots of land, two houses and a commercial building) in order to secure the effective enforcement of any potential confiscation order.
This decision was quashed by the Supreme Court on 5 September 2012 on the grounds that the order had been issued by a single judge rather than a three-judge panel.
A new seizure order to the same effect was issued on 30 October 2012 by a three-judge panel of the Vukovar County Court.
The seizure was noted in the land register, which made it impossible for the applicant to dispose of the property at issue.
The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing, inter alia, that the measure was disproportionate to any potential confiscation order that might be served on him.
On 27 December 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the measure was not disproportionate, but without going into further detail on the matter.
The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint reiterating his previous complaints. On 25 April 2013 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared his complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the lower courts had not decided on any of the applicant’s rights or obligations or any criminal charge against him.
On an unspecified date in 2013 the applicant requested that the Vukovar County Court lift the seizure order, arguing that it was disproportionate and offering to forfeit part of the property corresponding to the value of the alleged proceeds of crime.
On 9 July 2013 the Vukovar County Court dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that the measure was in accordance with the 2010 Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime Act.
On 12 July 2013 the applicant again complained that the seizure order was disproportionate, indicating that according to the relevant market data, the total value of the seized property was EUR 9,887,084.00. However, according to the applicant, his complaints have been to no avail.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the seizure order was not proportionate in the circumstances of the case and that he did not have an effective procedure to challenge it.
He also submits, under Article 13 of the Convention, that his complaints concerning the seizure order were never properly examined by the domestic authorities.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
If so, was that interference 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? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to submit two copies of all documents relevant to the seizure of the applicant’s property.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy