10 Jan The court proceedings for the return of money seized in Croatia while the state was still part of Yugoslavia took too long

In the case of Zaklan v. Croatia (application no. 57239/13, 16.12.2021) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned attempts by the applicant to recover foreign currency seized by the Yugoslav authorities in 1991 in Croatia when that State had still been part of Yugoslavia. Relying on Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property), the applicant complained of the refusal of the court to order the return of the money that had been seized from him.

The applicant argued that the administrative proceedings against him had been taken over by Croatia. The proceedings had been stayed for more than 27 years and the administrative offence he had been charged with had become time-barred. 

The Court noted that Croatia had taken over the administrative proceedings against the applicant and that the prolonged stay of proceedings imposed by Croatian legislation had prevented him from recovering the money both from the Croatian and from the Serbian authorities. It therefore concluded that the situation the applicant complained of was attributable to the Croatian authorities and thus the application was admissible. 

It emphasised that Serbia was not a party to the proceedings, and this decision was without prejudice to that State’s responsibility in the case.

Concerning the substantive issue, the Court held that the money belonged to the applicant and had been seized only temporarily. The Court was satisfied that it had been lawfully seized and that the delay in returning it had had the legitimate aim of protecting the public purse. However, the Court held that the applicant had been made to wait too long. The stayed proceedings had also prevented him from seeking the return of the money from the Serbian authorities, which could not be said to have been protecting the Croatian State’s financial interests. The Court concluded that the applicant had been made to bear a disproportionate burden in this case, leading to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Reference from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights