Communicated on 17 October 2016
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 47880/14
Miroslav VUKOVIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 24 June 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Miroslav Vuković, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Umićević, an advocate practising in Zagreb.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background to the case
On 21 July 2000 the police authorities temporarily seized the applicant’s vehicle bearing Canadian licence plates suspecting that it had been stolen.
On 24 July and 1 September 2000 the police experts examined the car and established that its vehicle identification number (VIN) was genuine.
On 21 July 2000 the police authorities asked the Canadian Interpol to verify whether the applicant’s car and two other vehicles were being sought by the police authorities in Canada, on whose name they were registered, whether they had been registered for export and whether the car documents were genuine.
On 29 December 2000 the police authorities asked the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu) to decide on the status of the vehicle.
On 23 March 2001 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney Office instructed the police authorities to ask the relevant information from the Canadian Interpol.
On 18 March 2002 the police authorities asked the Canadian Interpol to expedite handling of their request for information.
By a decision of 2 May 2002 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney Office ordered that the car be returned to the applicant, whereupon, on 7 May 2002, the police authorities did so.
2. Civil proceedings
On 22 July 2003 the applicant brought a civil action for compensation against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu). He eventually sought 55,275.95 Croatian kunas (HRK)[1]. He argued that the car had been returned to him in the state of disrepair because of inadequate storage and, in any event, lost its value during the two years it had been kept by the police, which period was unreasonably long.
The expert opinion obtained by the court during the proceedings suggested that the costs of repairing the applicant’s car amounted to HRK 35,275.95 and that its value had dropped by HRK 22,000.
By a judgment of 16 December 2008 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s action.
On 30 June 2009 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance judgment.
The first- and the second-instance courts held that the temporary seizure of the applicant’s car was lawful, as it was based on sections 177, 184 and 218 of Criminal Procedure Act, and that therefore the State could not be liable for damages.
The applicant then concurrently lodged a, so-called, extraordinary appeal on points of law (revizija), with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) and a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske).
In his appeal on points of law the applicant invited the Supreme Court to pronounce itself on the legal question which he considered imporatnt for the uniform application of the law, namely, whether the owners of objects temporarily seized for the purposes of criminal proceedings were entitled to compensation for inability to use those objects, in situations where, eventually, no criminal or minor-offence proceedings had been instituted.
In his constitutional complaint the applicant argued that the judgments of the first- and second-instance courts were in breach of his right of ownership guaranteed by Article 48 of the Croatian Constitution.
By a decision of 21 February 2012 the Supreme Court declared inadmissible the applicant’s appeal on points of law finding that the legal question he had raised was not important for the uniform application of the law.
On 23 January 2014 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint and served its decision on his representative on 7 February 2014. That court examined the case primarily under Article 29 paragraph 1 of the Croatian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair procedure and held that the contested judgments were not arbitrary. As regards the applicant’s argument that his right of ownership guaranteed by Article 48 of the Constitution had been violated, the Constitutional Court held as follows:
“The Constitutional Court protects the right of ownership at the constitutional level in a manner that prevents restriction or taking of that right by the State authorities, unless a restriction or taking is provided for by law ...
... interferences with ownership by other legal subjects (natural or legal persons) are property disputes of a private-law nature. The Constitutional Court examines also such decisions of judicial and other authorities if it finds that the contested decision, having regard to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, is based on an unacceptable legal view or is so wrong and without sound legal reasoning that it can be qualified as arbitrary.
The Constitutional Court did not find such circumstances in the complainant’s case.
Therefore, the complainants’ right of ownership guaranteed by Article 48 of the Constitution was not breached by the contested judgments.”
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act (Zakon o kaznenom postupku, Official Gazette of no. 110/1997 with subsequent amendments), which was in force between 1 January 1998 and 1 January 2009, read as follows:
Section 218
“(1) Objects which have to be confiscated pursuant to the Criminal Code, or which may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings shall be temporarily seized and, by a judicial decision, deposited for safe-keeping.
...
(5) The police authorities may size objects referred to in paragraph 1 ... of this section when acting under section 177 and 184(1) of this Act or when executing a court order.”
Section 177(1)
“If there are grounds for suspicion that a criminal offence subject to public prosecution has been committed, the police authorities shall take measures required to identify the perpetrator ... discover and secure ... objects which may be used as evidence ...”
Section 184(1)
“If there is a risk of delay, the police authorities may even before the commencement of the investigation temporarily seize objects in accordance with section 184 of this Act ...”
Section 137(3)
“Objects which may be used as evidence shall be temporarily seized and, upon the termination of the proceedings, returned to their owner. If such an object is indispensable to the owner, it may be returned to him or her even before the termination of the proceedings, under the obligation to bring upon request.”
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the refusal of the domestic courts to award him compensation for the damage sustained by the prolonged retention and inadequate storage of his car temporarily seized by the police authorities.
2. The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court’s decision was not adequately reasoned because that court, when dismissing his argument concerning a violation of his right of ownership, referred to its legal views developed in respect of property disputes between private parties whereas his case concerned a dispute between an individual and the State.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the refusal of the domestic courts to award him compensation for the pecuniary damage sustained by the temporary seizure of his car, in violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the Constitutional Court’s decision dismissing the applicant’s constitutional complaint concerning a violation of his right of ownership adequately reasoned in view of the fact that the Constitutional Court in so doing referred to its legal views developed in respect of property disputes between private parties whereas the applicant’s case concerned a dispute between an individual and the State?
[1] Approximately 7,126 euros at the time.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy