CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 septembre 2017

.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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 14 September 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24728/15 B.M. against Croatia lodged on 15 May 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr M. B., is a Croatian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Zagreb. The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant owned a one-bedroom flat measuring 64.99 sq. m in Zagreb. In 2005 he started living with his partner R.S., who had a son born in 1996. In 2007 R.S. gave birth to the couple’s daughter. In October 2007 the applicant bought a two-bedroom flat measuring 82.27 sq. m in Zagreb. According to the applicant, he bought a bigger flat because he needed to properly accommodate a family of four people. In   2008 he sold his smaller flat. When the applicant bought the new flat he submitted a tax exemption request to the tax authorities. He relied on section 11(1)(9) of the Real Property Transfer Tax Act, which provided for a tax exemption: a person who was buying a flat or a house in order to solve his housing issue could obtain an exemption if he or his family members did not have another flat or house to meet their housing needs. The same provision specified that any real property equipped with basic facilities which met hygiene and technical requirements was to be considered a flat or house meeting housing needs. In his request, the applicant argued that the flat he owned did not meet the housing needs of his family. On 15 June 2010 the Zagreb Tax Office ( Ministarstvo Financija – Porezna uprava, Područni ured Zagreb, Ispostava Zagreb ) dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that his flat was sufficiently large for his family, which was made up of the applicant and his daughter, and had all the necessary facilities such as water, electricity and other public utilities. It   held that the applicant’s partner and her son were not his immediate family members within the meaning of the Real Property Transfer Tax Act. The applicant was ordered to pay 83,925.06 Croatian kunas (HRK – approximately 11,200 euros (EUR) at the material time) in tax. Upon an appeal by the applicant, on 18 January 2011 the Finance Ministry ( Ministarstvo Financija, Samostalna služba za drugostupanjski upravni postupak , hereinafter “the Ministry”) upheld the decision of the Zagreb Tax Office, endorsing its reasoning. On 6 May 2011 the applicant lodged an administrative action with the Higher Administrative Court ( Visoki upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ), arguing that the lower bodies had failed to treat his partner and her son as his immediate family. On 3 July 2014 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s administrative action as ill-founded, endorsing the reasoning of the lower administrative bodies. On 1 September 2014 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ), contending that he had been discriminated against in the application of the relevant tax legislation. On 5 November 2014 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. That decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 19   November 2014. COMPLAINTS Under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the unfair application of the domestic tax legislation and complains that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his family status. The applicant also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 that he was discriminated against on account of the manner in which the tax legislation was applied, which failed to take into consideration that his partner and her son with whom he lived were his immediate family members.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 8 and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the manner in which the relevant tax legislation was applied in his case?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights in connection with his family situation, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   3.     In view of the applicant’s family situation, has he suffered discrimination on account of the application of the relevant domestic tax provisions, contrary to Article   1 of Protocol No. 12?   The Government are requested to provide documents regarding the applicant’s case.