issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 031 (2024)
13.02.2024
Judgments of 13 February 2024
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven Chamber judgments1:
four judgments are summarised below;
separate press releases have been issued for three other judgments in the cases of Executief van de
Moslims van België and Others v. Belgium (application no. 16760/22 and ten other applications),
X v. Greece (no. 38588/21), and Jann-Zwicker and Jann v. Switzerland (no. 4976/20);
The judgments summarised below are available only in English.
Maroslavac v. Croatia (application no. 64806/16)
The applicant, Željka Maroslavac, is a Croatian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Zagreb.
The case concerns the applicant’s complaints that a tax audit of her financial affairs was flawed, and
that she was ordered to pay taxes for periods for which the right of the State to collect those taxes
had become time-barred.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on
Human Rights, the applicant complains that the tax audit took into account her financial activities in
2001 and 2002 and that she was consequently ordered to pay profit tax for that period although the
statutory limitation period had expired, and that the domestic authorities never properly addressed
her complaints in that respect. She also complains that she was unable to participate effectively in
the determination of her obligation to pay income tax as the decision extending the tax audit to
include her income tax had been served only a day before the tax inspection ended.
No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The applicant, Saulius Jakutavičius, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Vilnius.
The case concerns the non-reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred by the applicant in
administrative-law violation proceedings in which he successfully challenged a fine imposed on him
for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, the applicant complains that
the fact that his costs and expenses were not reimbursed violated his right to effectively defend
himself.
No violation of Article 6 § 1
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
