FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 42840/12 GLOBAL CAR TRADE GMBH against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 October 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Kristina Pardalos, President, Ksenija Turković, Pauliine Koskelo, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 July 2012,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The application was lodged on 10 July 2012 in the name of Global Car Trade GmbH (hereinafter “the applicant company”), a limited liability company incorporated under German law with its registered office in Munich. Mr R. Graber, a lawyer practising in Aschheim, claimed to have represented it before the Court.

A. The facts concerning the lodging of the application and the procedure before the Court

2. Since Mr Graber did not enclose an authority form with the application, on 14 October 2016 the Court, by a letter sent by registered mail and delivered to him on 25 October 2016, asked him to do so within fifteen days.

3. No response had been received within the period allowed for submission and no extension of the time-limit had been requested.

4. On 12 January, 14 February and 17 March 2017 the Court, by subsequent letters sent by registered mail, asked the applicant company to submit within eight days an authority form authorising Mr Graber to represent it before the Court. The letters were returned undeliverable, with a note indicating that the applicant company was unknown at the supplied address.

5. On 15 September 2017 Mr Graber submitted an authority form signed by Mr Ilić on behalf of the applicant company authorising him to represent it before the Court. The authority form was not signed by Mr Graber nor did it contain information such as the applicant company ’ s official address. In addition, the authority form was not accompanied by a document showing that Mr Ilić has statutory or other authorisation to act on behalf of the applicant company.

B. The facts concerning the administrative offence proceedings

6. On 14 March 2007 the applicant company and a commercial bank concluded a leasing contract in respect of a car, the pr ice of which amounted to 210,08 4.34 euros (EUR). The parties agreed that the bank would remain the owner of the car while the applicant company would be using it for a monthly fee of EUR 2,745.89, including taxes, payable for the period of five years. The car was registered in Germany and had German license plates.

7. Shortly after having concluded the contract, in 2007 the applicant company ’ s director used the car for going on a business trip to Croatia. Upon his arrival he handed the car over to his acquaintance J.B. who parked it in the garage of a hotel in Zagreb. Shortly afterwards the Croatian police spotted the car and notified the customs authorities of their suspicion that the vehicle had been illegally imported to Croatia.

8. On 25 April 2007 the customs authorities confiscated the car in connection with potential breaches of the relevant customs and tax regulations.

9. By a decision of 24 September 2007 the Customs Administration issued a decision ordering J.B. to pay the relevant taxes in the amount of HRK 1,859,439.70 together with the accrued statutory default interest (hereinafter “the customs debt”). The Customs Administration established that J.B. had not been allowed to drive the vehicle because he had not had habitual residence abroad. They also ordered that the sale of the car in the event J.B. did not pay the customs debt.

10. The applicant company lodged an appeal. On 15 February 2008 the Ministry of Finance, as the second-instance administrative authority, dismissed it as ill-founded and upheld the first-instance decision.

11. The applicant company then brought an action in the Administrative Court claiming, inter alia, that J.B. was not the owner of the vehicle and that he owned immovable property. Accordingly, the custom debt could be cleared by selling the property.

12. By a judgment of 18 November 2010 the Administrative Court dismissed the company ’ s action.

13. On 28 February 2011 the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court claiming, inter alia , that the Customs Administration and the Administrative Court had violated its rights protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

14. By a decision of 20 December 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant company ’ s constitutional complaint inadmissible because the case did not raise any constitutional issue. This decision was served on the applicant company ’ s representative on 19 January 2012.

15. Meanwhile, on 10 April 2008 the Customs Administration issued an enforcement order with a view to executing its decision of 24 September 2007. It ordered the sale of the vehicle because J.B. had not paid the customs debt.

THE LAW

16. Article 37 of the Convention, in its relevant part, provides as follows:

“1. The Court 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

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or

(b) the matter has been resolved; or

(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application ...”

17. Rules 43, 44A, 44B and 44C of the Rules of Court provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:

Rule 43 (Striking out and restoration to the list)

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

... ”

Rule 44A (Duty to cooperate with the Court)

“ The parties have a duty to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings and, in particular, to take such action within their power as the Court considers necessary for the proper administration of justice. This duty shall also apply to a Contracting Party not party to the proceedings where such cooperation is necessary. ”

Rule 44B (Failure to comply with an order of the Court)

“ Where a party fails to comply with an order of the Court concerning the conduct of the proceedings, the President of the Chamber may take any steps which h e or she considers appropriate. ”

Rule 44C (Failure to participate effectively)

“ 1. Where a party fails to adduce evidence or provide information requested by the Court or to divulge relevant information of its own motion or otherwise fails to participate effectively in the proceedings, the Court may draw such inferences as it deems appropriate.

...”

18. In the Court ’ s view Mr Graber ’ s failure to reply to the correspondence by the Court in a timely manner and delayed submission of an incomplete authority form (see paragraphs 2-5 above) are to be seen as the applicant ’ s failure to discharge the duty to cooperate with the Court and to participate effectively in the proceedings.

19. In these circumstances, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application, “for any other reason established by the Court”, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

20. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case 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 16 November 2017 .

             Renata Degener Kristina Pardalos              Deputy Registrar President