Communicated on 8 February 2017
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 12022/16
Milan MILOŠEVIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 22 February 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Milan Milošević, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was born in 1966 and lives in Bosanski Brod.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 June 2012 the relevant domestic authorities found that the motor fuel in the applicant’s lorry was a special state-supported heating fuel, which could not be used for motor vehicles.
On the same day the Vukovar Customs Office (Carinarnica Vukovar) found the applicant guilty of a minor offence under the Excise Tax Act for the use of the prohibited fuel in his truck and fined him with 4,800 Croatian kunas (HRK; approximately 640 euros (EUR)). The applicant duly paid his fine.
On 2 July 2012 the Osijek Customs Office (Carinarnica Osijek) ordered the applicant to pay HRK 123,000 (approximately EUR 16,300) as a special excise tax, consisting of the general excise for the fuel in question increased by 100 percent due to its improper use on 29 June 2012.
The applicant challenged this decision before the Ministry of Finance (Ministarstvo Financija), and on 31 October 2013 the Ministry quashed the first-instance decision on the grounds that it did not properly determine the quantity of the fuel subjected to the special excise tax.
On 15 January 2014 the Osijek Custom Office set the new amount of the due excise tax at HRK 83,025 (approximately EUR 16,120). This was confirmed on appeal by the Ministry of Finance.
The applicant then lodged an administrative action in the Osijek Administrative Court (Upravni sud u Osijeku) challenging the decision of the administrative authorities.
On 20 January 2015 the Osijek Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action. This was upheld on appeal by the High Administrative Court (Visoki upravni sud Republike Hrvatske).
The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining, inter alia, that he had been punished twice for the same facts, first in the minor offences proceedings and then in the excise tax proceedings. He relied on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.
On 20 January 2016 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains, under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, of his prosecution and punishment for the minor tax offence, and the subsequent imposition of the tax surcharges in the administrative proceedings concerning the same facts.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Have the applicant been tried and punished twice for the same offence, as prohibited by Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7?
In particular, did the subsequent imposition of the tax surcharges in the administrative proceedings amount to a “criminal charge” against him, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law?
If so, did the subsequent application of that measure amount to a duplication of trial or punishment (bis) as proscribed by Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (see A and B v. Norway [GC], no. 24130/11, 15 November 2016)?
The Government are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicant’s case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy