Communicated on 21 April 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 1190/16 Frano ĆALUŠIĆ and others against Croatia lodged on 26 December 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The first and second applicants, Mr Frano Ćalušić and Ms Anđelija Ćalušić , are Croatian nationals who were both born in 1947 and live in Zagreb. The third applicant, Fran-Kuna d.o.o ., is their foreign currency exchange company registered in Zagreb. The applicants are represented before the Court by Ms L. Ku š an , a lawyer practising in Ivani ć -Grad.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 2 January 2013, in the context of criminal proceedings against the applicants ’ son on charges of counterfeiting money and concluding usurious contracts, an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Zagrebu ) ordered, among other things, a search of their house and business premises located in the same building.

The next day the police carried out the order to search the applicants ’ premises and found two safes in the house and one in the exchange office.

As the applicants were away at the time, the police informed them by telephone of the search. They indicated that they would be coming back to Zagreb in a few days and would open the safes.

The police proceeded to forcibly open the safes and seized all the money contained therein (approximately 190,000 euros (EUR) in life savings and EUR 51,000 relating to the foreign exchange business).

The applicants were never served with any decision authorising seizure of the money in question.

In May 2014 the applicants asked the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Op ć insko državno odvjetni š tvo u Zagrebu ), as the competent prosecuting authority in the criminal proceedings against their son, to return their money, as it represented all their life savings and the funds necessary for the operation of their business.

On 16 September 2014 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office replied by letter, indicating that the money in question had been lawfully seized on the basis of an investigating judge ’ s order in the context of criminal proceedings against their son, in the course of which it would be established whether the money related to the criminal offences imputed to him.

Meanwhile, on 15 October 2013 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) concerning the seizure of their property.

To date they have not received a reply.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that their property was seized in the context of criminal proceedings against a third party and that there was no effective procedure by which they could protect their property interests in that respect.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions related to the seizure of their property in the criminal proceedings against a third party, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of all documents relevant to the seizure of the applicants ’ property.