CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 24 November 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 69278/16 Libero PASCALE against Croatia lodged on 18 November 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case is a follow-up case to the judgment adopted in the case of Boljević v. Croatia (no. 43492/11, 31 January 2017) where the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The application concerns the proportionality of the confiscation of 20,000 euros (EUR) in cash and EUR 98,495.00 in cheques which the applicant, an Italian national, failed to declare to the Croatian customs authorities when entering Croatia. The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that the confiscation of the above amounts was disproportionate, in that it imposed an excessive burden on him, thus violating his right of property. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES   Was the confiscation of EUR 20,000 in cash and EUR 98,495.00 in cheques, imposed on the applicant for failing to declare them to the Croatian customs authorities, necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, in the circumstances of the present case, did that measure strike the requisite fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirement to protect the applicant’s right of property, and did it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on him, having particular regard to the severity of the sanction (see, for example, Boljević v. Croatia , no. 43492/11, 31 January 2017)?