Information Note on the Court’s case-law 58
November 2003
Napijalo v. Croatia - 66485/01
Judgment 13.11.2003 [Section I]
Article 2 of Protocol No. 4
Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4
Freedom to leave a country
Confiscation of passport by the authorities for more than two years: violation
Facts: The applicant was fined at a border control in February 1999 for not having declared some goods. As he did not pay the fine, his passport was taken by a customs officer and not returned to him. The applicant wrote to the Ministry of Finance asking that his passport be returned, but he received no indication as to when this would be done; the letter only mentioned that his passport had been seized in accordance with the law because of his refusal to pay the fine. In March 1999, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Municipal Court, requesting an interim measure for the return of his passport and damages resulting from his inability to leave Croatia. The Municipal Court rejected the applicant's request for an interim measure. In April 2001, in the course of the proceedings in the Municipal Court, the police returned the passport to the applicant (they claimed to have twice written to his registered address inviting him to collect the passport). Following the return of his passport, the applicant reformulated his claim, seeking a declaratory decision and costs. The court dismissed the claim and ordered him to pay the costs. His subsequent appeal to the County Court was also dismissed in December 2002.
Law: Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time) –The applicant's request for a declaratory decision was closely connected to his pecuniary claim for damages and costs, which rendered Article 6 applicable to the proceedings taken as a whole. The proceedings had lasted three years and six months, with two long periods of inactivity in the proceedings in the Municipal Court for which no explanation had been given. Since the applicant's freedom of movement was at stake, such a length of proceedings was not “reasonable”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously)
Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 – There had been an interference with the applicant's rights under this Article since he had been dispossessed of his passport, which, had he wished so, would have enabled him to leave the country. Although the Government maintained that the seizure of the passport had been done in accordance with law, the Court did not examine this question in view of the conclusion it reached on this complaint. As proceedings were never instituted against the applicant for a customs offence, there was no justification for the withholding of his passport or for the Municipal Court to reject his request for an interim measure. It followed that the interference with the applicant's liberty of movement had not been “necessary in a democratic society”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 2,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy