CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 6 September 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 38785/18 Silvano RADOBULJAC against Croatia lodged on 8 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns enforcement proceedings the tax authorities instituted against the applicant for collecting his tax debt. In those proceedings the applicant asked that his tax debt be extinguished by offsetting it ( prijeboj ) with his enforceable claim against the State related to the services he had provided as an officially appointed counsel in the criminal proceedings. The tax authorities, and subsequently the administrative courts, refused to do so holding that offsetting could come into play only if the applicant had a claim against the tax authorities from a tax relationship. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: (a) that the domestic authorities’ decision was contrary to section 115(3) of the General Tax Act and section 2(3) of the related subordinate legislation which stipulates that an enforceable claim against the State could be offset with a person’s tax debt, and (b) that the State did not pay him its debt and at the same time collected its claim against him by way of enforcement and instituted minor offences proceedings against him for failing to pay taxes.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the fact that the State did not pay its debt to the applicant and at the same time collected its claim against him by way of enforcement in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the decision refusing to extinguish the applicant’s tax debt by offsetting it with his enforceable claim against the State lawful and proportionate to the aim in the general interest? Did this decision impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicant?