CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 March 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 22576/25 Franc RATAJ against Croatia lodged on 16 July 2025 communicated on 10 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant owns a transport business in Slovenia. Between 14 and 18   July 2022, the Croatian Ministry of the Interior and customs authorities discovered that Croatian nationals I.F. and A.F. had purchased 6,400   kg of tobacco abroad and transported it illegally from Slovenia to Croatia in the applicant’s lorry, which was driven by his employee I.O., a Slovenian national, and escorted to Croatia by a certain G.B. The lorry was seized in Zagreb. Criminal complaints were filed against I.O., I.F., A.F. and G.B. for illicit tobacco trade. In his statement to the customs authorities, the applicant stated that he had accepted to transport unknown cargo after receiving a phone call from a Slovenian company whose own lorry was out of service. He had done this without checking the transport documents or cargo himself, instead delegating this task to his employee, I.O. On 7 and 27 December 2022, the customs authorities ordered the applicant and G.B. to pay EUR 744,640.74 in excise duty; otherwise, the lorry would be confiscated and sold at an auction, whereas any debt not covered by the sale proceeds would be recovered through tax enforcement proceedings. They held the applicant and G.B. liable for the excise duty under section   6(2) of the Excise Duty Act because he/they must have known that the lorry was going to be used for illicit tobacco trade. Relying further on section   12(2) of the Excise Duty Act, which provides for a statutory presumption that the use of transport means for undeclared import of tobacco is unlawful and liable to taxation, they concluded that mere possession of undeclared tobacco was sufficient to determine the applicant’s and G.B.’s tax liability. The applicant brought an administrative action before the Zagreb Administrative Court and requested that the court examine two witnesses (his employee I.O. and a customs officer M.O.) and consult the case file of the criminal proceedings instituted against I.O. and other suspects. He argued that he had had no knowledge that his lorry was going to be used for illicit tobacco trade and underlined that no criminal proceedings had been instituted against him. On 4 March 2024 the Zagreb Administrative Court upheld the customs authorities’ decisions, finding that all the relevant facts could be established from their case file and thus refusing the applicant’s requests. This decision was upheld by the High Administrative Court and, on 20 February 2025, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint (decision served on the applicant on 17 March 2025). The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he was unable to adduce evidence concerning his presumed knowledge of illicit tobacco trade, and that the tax measure was disproportionate as no criminal charges had ever been brought against him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the decision of the domestic authorities ordering the applicant to pay excise duties or his lorry would be confiscated in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, is the amount of excise duties the applicant was ordered to pay proportionate to the severity of his actions and did it impose an excessive burden on him?   2.     Have the domestic proceedings afforded the applicant a reasonable opportunity of putting his case to the competent authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures interfering with the rights guaranteed by Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Ünsped Paket Servisi SaN. Ve TiC. A.Ş. v.   Bulgaria , no. 3503/08, §§ 38 and 45-47, 13   October   2015; Krayeva v.   Ukraine , no. 72858/13, §§ 26 and 29-32, 13   January   2022; Yordanov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 265/17 and 26473/18, §§   118 ‑ 20 and   130 ‑ 31, 26 September 2023; and compare, for factual similarities, Biagini v.   Croatia [Committee], no. 25308/18, §§ 21-30, 11 June 2024)?   3.     Has the applicant paid the excise duty debt imposed on him? Has his lorry been confiscated by the authorities, and if so, has it subsequently been returned to him?