SECOND SECTION
CASE OF STOJEVIĆ v. CROATIA
(Application no. 39852/20)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
4 March 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Stojević v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Anja Seibert-Fohr, President,
 Davor Derenčinović,
 Gediminas Sagatys, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 39852/20) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 31 August 2020 by a Croatian national, Mr Zvonko Stojević (“the applicant”), who was born in 1952, lives in Vienna and was represented by Ms V. Drenški Lasan, a lawyer practising in Zagreb;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the right to property to the Croatian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms S. Stažnik, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the confiscation of 100,000 euros (EUR) in cash which the applicant failed to declare to the Croatian customs authorities when exiting Croatia. 2. On 7 December 2011 the applicant attempted to cross the Croatian border carrying EUR 100,000 in cash, which he failed to declare to the customs authorities. The money was temporarily seized. 3. Administrative-offence proceedings were initiated against him as the failure to declare cash exceeding EUR 10,000 was an administrative offence under the domestic legislation regulating foreign currency operations and prevention of money laundering. 4. In his defence, the applicant argued, inter alia, that he had borrowed the money in question from a certain Mr A.P. for the purposes of obtaining a loan in the United Kingdom, where he had been travelling to on the day in question. The applicant submitted a certificate co-signed by A.P. confirming that the latter had borrowed him the money, and that the applicant was to repay it with (unspecified) interest. A.P. testified in the proceedings, confirming he had lent the money to the applicant. 5. By a decision of 21 February 2014, the Ministry of Finance found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence in question, fined him 5,000 Croatian kunas (approximately EUR 665), and confiscated the entire amount of EUR 100,000 in cash. In particular, it found the applicant’s defence unconvincing and held that he had failed to demonstrate both the legitimate origin of the money – i.e., that it was lent to him by A.P. – as well as its purpose. 6. The applicant’s appeal, in which he challenged the confiscation measure, was dismissed on 16 December 2015 by the judgment of the High Court for Administrative Offences, upholding the Ministry’s decision. 7. The applicant’s constitutional complaint, in which he alleged, inter alia, a violation of his right to property, was dismissed by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 15 April 2020, notified to the applicant’s representative on 20 April 2020. 8. Before the Court the applicant complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that the confiscation measure had been disproportionate, in that it imposed an excessive burden on him, thus violating his property rights.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation