CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 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 27 November 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 63535/16 Goran KAMENJAŠEVIĆ against Croatia lodged on 26 October 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case is a follow-up case to the judgment adopted in the leading case of Žaja v. Croatia (no. 37462/09, 4 October 2016) where the Court found a violation of Article 7 of the Convention on account of diverging interpretations by the domestic authorities of the notion of residence in Article   5 of Annex C to the Istanbul Convention on Temporary Admission. The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that in the administrative proceedings he was ordered to pay the taxes due on the importation of motor vehicles because the customs authorities wrongly interpreted Article 5 of Annex C to the Istanbul Convention, thereby violating his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions foreseeable (see, mutatis mutandis , Žaja v. Croatia , no. 37462/09, §§ 93-105, 4   October 2016)?