FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 74857/13 Marko CAPAN against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 June 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Aleš Pejchal, President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Jovan Ilievski, judges, and Abel Campos, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 October 2013,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Marko Capan, is a Croatian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Tenja. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Pajić, a lawyer practising in Osijek.

2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.

3. On 20 October 2015 the complaint concerning the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant ’ s possessions was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

The circumstances of the case

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. The proceedings before the regional office of the Ministry of Finance, Tax Authority in Osijek

5. In February 2005 the applicant bought some plots of land and submitted a tax return to the regional office of the Ministry of Finance, Tax Authority in Osijek ( Ministarstvo financija – Porezna uprava, Područni ured Osijek – “the Tax Authority”).

6. On 21 April 2005 the Tax Authority set the value of the applicant ’ s property at 114,000 Croatian kunas ((HRK), about 15,200 euros (EUR)), for the purpose of assessing the tax.

7. Upon an appeal by the applicant, on 15 May 2006, the same administrative body revoked that decision and set the value of the applicant ’ s property at HRK 75,226.00 (about EUR 10,000).

2. The proceedings before the State Administration Office in Osijek ‑ Baranja County

8. On 24 January 2006 the State Administration Office in Osijek ‑ Baranja County ( Ured državne uprave u Osječko-baranjskoj županiji – hereinafter “the State Administration Office”) instituted proceedings in respect of the applicant for setting a conversion fee for reclassifying plots of the applicant ’ s land as building land ( prenamjena poljoprivrednog u graÄ‘evinsko zemljiÅ¡te ).

9. On 20 May 2006 the Tax Authority informed the State Administration Office that the estimated value of the applicant ’ s property was HRK 114,000.

10. On 3 August 2006 the State Administration Office ordered the applicant to pay a conversion fee in the amount of HRK 5,700 (about EUR 760) based on the Tax Authority ’ s decision of 21 April 2005 setting the value of the applicant ’ s property at HRK 114,000, even though that decision had been revoked.

11. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fishing and Rural Development ( Ministartsvo poljoprivrede, ribarstva i ruralnog razvoja – hereinafter “the Ministry”), complaining, inter alia , that the decision of 21 April 2006 had not become final because the proceedings were still pending upon his appeal.

12. On 7 September 2010, the Ministry dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision of 3 August 2006.

13. The applicant then lodged an administrative complaint with the High Administrative Court ( Visoki upravni sud Republike Hrvatske ), complaining, inter alia , that the Tax Authority had provided incorrect information to the State Administration Office about the value of his property. He relied on the Tax Authority ’ s decision of 15 May 2006 by which that body ’ s decision of 21 April 2006 had been revoked.

14. On 7 November 2012 the High Administrative Court dismissed the applicant ’ s administrative claim as ill-founded.

15. On 17 April 2013 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) declared a constitutional complaint by the applicant inadmissible on the grounds that there was “no constitutional issue” to be examined and served its decision on the applicant ’ s representative on 26 April 2013.

3. The reopened proceedings before the State Administration Office in Osijek-Baranja County

16. On 21 December 2015 the State Administration Office reopened proceedings for setting the conversion fee for reclassifying plots of the applicant ’ s land as building land of its own motion. It invited the applicant to submit the Tax Authority ’ s decision of 15 May 2006.

17. On 11 January 2016 the State Administration Office annulled its decision of 3 August 2006 and set the new conversion fee based on the Tax Authority ’ s decision of 15 May 2006. It ordered the applicant to pay HRK 1,114 (about EUR 150). The applicant did not appeal and the decision became final on 29 January 2016.

18. Meanwhile, on 13 January 2016 the applicant paid the newly ‑ established conversion fee.

COMPLAINT

19. The applicant complained of the infringement of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

THE LAW

20. The applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, complained that the domestic authorities ’ decisions violated his property rights. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

A. The parties ’ submissions

21. The Government maintained that the case should be struck out under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention because the matter has been resolved. They submitted that the State Administration Office, in the reopened proceedings, had set aside its decision of 3 August 2006 and reassessed the reclassification fee upon the Tax Authority ’ s decision of 15 May 2006. The applicant had voluntarily paid the new fee. In addition, the applicant had not paid the amount of HRK 5,700 established by the decision of 3 August 2006, nor had the State taken any measure to enforce the impugned decision. Therefore, the matter had been resolved and the applicant had not suffered any pecuniary damage. As to the non-pecuniary damage, the Government averred that the Ministry had been deciding on the applicant ’ s appeal against the State Administration Office ’ s decision of 3 August 2006 for four years, during which period the applicant had had more than enough time to inform that body about the Tax Authority ’ s decision of 15 May 2006.

22. The applicant argued that the state authorities had corrected their mistakes only after the Government informed them that he had brought his case before the Court, namely ten years later. The applicant submitted that such actions were unacceptable.

B. The Court ’ s assessment

23. The Court reiterates that, under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, it may “... at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... the matter has been resolved ...”. In order to ascertain whether that provision applies to the present case, the Court must answer two questions: first, whether the circumstances complain ed of directly by the applicant still obtain, and secondly whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention have been redressed (see, for example, Stojanović v. Serbia , no. 34425/04, § 80, 19 May 2009).

24. The Court first observes that when the State Administration Office became aware that the Tax Authority had set aside its decision of 21 April 2006 and issued a new one on 15 May 2006, it reopened the impugned proceedings for setting a reclassification fee on its own motion, annulled its decision of 3 August 2006 and reassessed the reclassification fee in the amount of HRK 1,114 (about EUR 150). The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision and he immediately paid the fee (see paragraphs 16-18 above).

25. The Court further notes from the Government ’ s observations and documents in the case-file, not disputed by the applicant, that the applicant did not pay the fee assessed by the disputed decision of 3 August 2006. Moreover, the State authorities have never taken any measures against the applicant in order to enforce the disputed decision (see paragraphs 21-22 above).

26. While it is true that it took a decade for the State authorities to correct its own omission, there is nothing to suggest that the applicant suffered any disadvantage as a result of the alleged violation.

27. Given the above considerations, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Done in English and notified in writing on 19 July 2018 .

Abel Campos Aleš Pejchal Registrar President