Published on 12 December 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 32637/21
PASSUS PROSPERUS D.O.O. ZA PROIZVODNJU, TRGOVINU I USLUGE
against Croatia
lodged on 18 June 2021
communicated on 22 November 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The case concerns confiscation of a significant amount of money (approximately EUR 106,045) from the applicant company in the criminal proceedings against a third party, on the grounds that the money represented proceeds of crime.
Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant company’s former sole founder and director on charges of abuse of trust in economic transactions to the detriment of another company, which resulted in illegal property gain for the accused and the applicant company. In these proceedings, the applicant company did not have a formally recognised status of a party to the proceedings, although it was later given an opportunity to lodge an appeal against the first-instance court judgment with regard to the decision on confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The Supreme Court held that, even though the relevant law regarding procedural safeguards of a third party had been misapplied, this did not breach the applicant company’s rights since the accused, as the applicant company’s founder and director at the time, had a shared interest with it and was able to effectively participate in the proceedings.
The applicant company argues, however, that this was insufficient to protect its interests and complains, under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, that it was not given an opportunity to participate effectively in the criminal proceedings, and that the domestic courts had failed to assess whether it had acquired the property gain in good faith.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant company have an adequate opportunity to participate and defend its interests in the criminal proceedings against a third party in which a significant amount of money had been confiscated from it, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Silickienė v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, §§ 47-50, 10 April 2012; Veits v. Estonia, no. 12951/11, §§ 57-60, 15 January 2015, and, mutatis mutandis, Ünsped Paket Servisi SaN. Ve TiC. A.Ş. v. Bulgaria, no. 3503/08, §§ 46-47 and 51, 13 October 2015)?
2. Was the decision of the domestic courts to confiscate the proceeds of the crime from the applicant company in breach of its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ünsped Paket Servisi SaN. Ve TiC. A.Ş., cited above, §§ 46-47)?