CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 April 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 34464/24 Štefan ŠČAP against Slovenia lodged on 15 November 2024 communicated on 26 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s inability to obtain compensation for the overpaid income tax. Between 2014 and 2016 Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia (FURS) issued the applicant three decision regarding income tax, which failed to take into account the applicant’s actual expenses. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against said decisions. In 2017, the Supreme Court adopted a judgment in which it held that, when determining income tax FURS should have taken into account the expenses that taxpayers incurred. In 2018, the applicant lodged a civil claim against Slovenia, seeking, with reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court, the reimbursement of the overpaid tax. His claim for damages was dismissed at all levels of jurisdiction on the ground that the domestic authorities had not acted with so ‑ called “qualified unlawfulness”. His claim based on unjust enrichment was likewise dismissed, as the tax assessment decisions for the years 2014 to 2016 had already become final. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention about his inability to obtain compensation for the overpaid income tax.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, has the interference been justified under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis , S.A. Dangeville v. France , no. 36677/97, §§ 52–61, ECHR 2002-III)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?