Communicated on 18 June 2019

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 25308/18 Aleksandar BIAGINI against Croatia lodged on 24 May 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the customs authorities ’ decision ordering the applicant to pay customs duties on the temporary importation of a vessel.

On 12 April 2013 an Italian company declared the temporary importation of a vessel in its ownership to the Croatian customs authorities. The authorities found that the company satisfied the conditions for exemption from payment of customs duties provided for in Article 5 of Annex C to the Convention on Temporary Admission (hereafter “the Istanbul Convention”) and issued a vignette for the vessel. On 20 April 2013 the owner of the Italian company, who was in Italy at the time, asked the applicant, a professional skipper, to take the vessel from the repair post to the harbour some 14 nautical miles away and the applicant did so. The authorities then instituted administrative proceedings against the applicant, ordering him to pay the customs duties on importation of the vessel in the amount of 455,530.31 Croatian kunas [1] . Before the domestic authorities the applicant argued that he had not imported the vessel to Croatia as that had been done by the vessel ’ s owner several days earlier. He had merely taken the vessel from the repair post to the harbour at the owner ’ s request. He claimed that the decision ordering him to pay the import duties had been contrary to Article 7 of Annex C to the Istanbul Convention which allowed using the vessel under authorisation of the person who had temporarily imported it, and had imposed an excessive financial burden on him, taking into account his low income and family situation. The authorities dismissed his complaints finding that he had used the vessel without having a special authorisation from the owner who, as required by the national law, ought to have been present at the Croatian territory.

The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the domestic authorities ’ decision ordering him to pay customs duties had been unlawful and imposed an excessive financial burden on him.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the decision of the domestic authorities ordering the applicant to pay customs duties in accordance with the requir ements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was it lawful, proportionate to the aim in the general interest, and did it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicant?

[1] Approximately 61 000 euros