CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sDD7CB8CD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt }     Communicated on 20 October 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 74857/13 Marko CAPAN against Croatia lodged on 17 October 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Marko Capan, is a Croatian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Tenja. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Pajić, a lawyer practising in Osijek. On 21 April 2005 the regional office of the Ministry of Finance Tax Authority in Osijek ( Ministartsvo financija – Porezna uprava, Područni ured u Osijek – “the Tax Authority”) set the value of the applicant’s property at 114,000 Croatian kunas (HRK). Upon appeal by the applicant, on 15 May 2006 the same administrative body revoked that decision and set the value of the applicant’s property at HRK 75,226.00. Meanwhile, on 24 January 2006 the State Administration Office in Osijek-Baranja County ( Ured državne uprave u Osječko-baranjskoj županiji – hereinafter “the State Administration Office”) initiated proceedings against the applicant of its own motion, seeking payment of a conversion fee for reclassifying plots of the applicant’s land as building land ( prenamjena poljoprivrednog u građevinskog zemljište ). On 20 May 2006 the State Administration Office received a letter from the Tax Authority confirming that the estimated value of the applicant’s property was HRK 114,000. On 3 August 2006 the State Administration Office issued a decision, ordering the applicant to pay a conversion fee based on the decision of 21   April 2005 setting the value of the applicant’s property, which had been revoked. On 7 September 2010 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fishing and Rural Development, acting as the second-instance administrative body, dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance decision of 3 August 2006. The applicant then lodged an administrative action with the Administrative Court, which dismissed it as ill-founded on 7 November 2012. On 17 April 2013 the Constitutional Court declared a constitutional complaint by the applicant inadmissible on the grounds that there was “no constitutional issue” to be examined. On 26 April 2013 the applicant’s representative was served with the Constitutional Court’s decision. COMPLAINT The applicant complains that the domestic authorities’ decisions violated his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Did the domestic authorities’ decisions deprive the applicant of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference justified under this provision? In particular, was it proportionate?