Communicated on 20 October 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 74857/13 Marko CAPAN against Croatia lodged on 17 October 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

On 21 April 2005 the regional office of the Ministry of Finance Tax Authority in Osijek ( Ministartsvo financija – Porezna uprava , Područni ured u Osijek – “the Tax Authority”) set the value of the applicant ’ s property at 114,000 Croatian kunas (HRK).

Upon 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.

Meanwhile, on 24 January 2006 the State Administration Office in Osijek- Baranja County ( Ured državne uprave u Osječko-baranjskoj županiji – hereinafter “the State Administration Office”) initiated proceedings against the applicant of its own motion, seeking payment of a conversion fee for reclassifying plots of the applicant ’ s land as building land ( prenamjena poljoprivrednog u građevinskog zemljište ).

On 20 May 2006 the State Administration Office received a letter from the Tax Authority confirming that the estimated value of the applicant ’ s property was HRK 114,000.

On 3 August 2006 the State Administration Office issued a decision, ordering the applicant to pay a conversion fee based on the decision of 21 April 2005 setting the value of the applicant ’ s property, which had been revoked.

On 7 September 2010 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fishing and Rural Development, acting as the second-instance administrative body, dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance decision of 3 August 2006.

The applicant then lodged an administrative action with the Administrative Court, which dismissed it as ill-founded on 7 November 2012.

On 17 April 2013 the Constitutional Court declared a constitutional complaint by the applicant inadmissible on the grounds that there was “no constitutional issue” to be examined.

On 26 April 2013 the applicant ’ s representative was served with the Constitutional Court ’ s decision.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that the domestic authorities ’ decisions violated his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the domestic authorities ’ decisions deprive the applicant of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference justified under this provision? In particular, was it proportionate?