Communicated on 18 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 21126/13 Mato BUTIJER against Croatia lodged on 4 March 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mato Butijer , is a Croatian national, who was born in 1927 and lives in Opatija .

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Background to the case

On 11 February 1986 the Pula County Court found the applicant guilty on charges of fraud on the detriment of M. Å . and sentenced him to imprisonment. It also ordered confiscation of the unlawfully obtained pecuniary gain by fraud which, together with the costs and expenses of the proceedings and a fine, amount to a total amount of 30,000 Deutsche marks (DEM) corresponding to 906,708 Yugoslav dinars (YUM) At the same time, the Pula County Court instructed M. Å . that he could institute separate civil proceedings for damages had he considered it appropriate.

This judgment was confirmed by the Supreme Court ( Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske ) on 5 September 1986.

2. Proceedings for enforcement of the confiscation order

In September 1987 the competent State Attorney ’ s Office instituted the enforcement proceedings against the applicant for confiscation of the proceeds of crime ordered by the final judgment of the criminal courts.

Initially, the Opatija Municipal Court ( Op ć inski sud u Opatiji ) ordered the enforcement of the confiscation order by selling of the applicant ’ s house but due to unsettled property issues the enforcement was stayed until the determination of the applicant ’ s property title on the house.

Meanwhile, in June 1987 and September 1988, the applicant made two payments with regard to the confiscation order in the total amount of YUM 5,123,360.

On 12 March 2012 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued on the grounds that due to the laps of time there were no further grounds under the relevant domestic law to continue with the enforcement.

3. Civil proceedings against the applicant instituted by M. Å .

On 2 October 1987 M. Å . lodged a civil action against the applicant in the Opatija Municipal Court claiming payment of DEM 30,000 in connection with the applicant ’ s criminal conviction of fraud to his detriment.

During the proceedings the applicant argued that he had already paid the same debt on the basis of the confiscation of proceeds of crime and that the only possibility for M.Å . under the relevant domestic law was to claim the reimbursement of that amount from the State. However, he had failed to do that and thus the applicant invited the Opatija Municipal Court to dismiss his civil action.

After a number of remittals, on 29 October 2003 the Opatija Municipal Court accepted M.Š. ’ s civil action and ordered the applicant to pay him 15,338.75 euros (EUR) corresponding to DEM 30,000 in relation to the fraud committed by the applicant. The Opatija Municipal Court held that fact that the proceeds of crime had been confiscated could not exclude the possibility for the victim to claim compensation of the same amount on the grounds of unjust enrichment.

The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment before the Rijeka County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Rijeci ) arguing that he could not be ordered twice to pay the same debt – once to the State and then to the victim.

On 6 September 2007 the Rijeka County Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment endorsing the reasoning of the Opatija Municipal Court.

The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court reiterating his arguments before the lower courts.

On 19 January 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law as ill-founded endorsing the lower courts judgments.

The applicant challenged the decisions of the lower courts before the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) reiterating his previous arguments that he was ordered twice to pay the same debt.

On 17 January 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint as ill-founded endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 6 § of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1, that he was obliged to pay the same debt twice – once to the State; and for the second time to the victim.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, was the applicant obliged to pay the same debt twice? If so, did that impose a disproportionate burden on the applicant?

The Government are required to submit two copies of all relevant documents in the applicant ’ s case.