Background
Ivan Lazić is a disabled shooting instructor and retired competitor who lost both legs in 1959. Since 1969, he has been actively involved in shooting sports, winning medals in national competitions and serving as head coach of the national shooting team for disabled athletes. He kept three pistols at a local shooting club over which he presided.
In October 2015, minor offence proceedings were instituted against Lazić for refusing to allow police to verify the safekeeping conditions of his firearms at the club. On 1 December 2015, the Zagreb Minor Offences Court convicted him under the Weapons Act and imposed a protective measure confiscating the three pistols. On 4 July 2019, the High Minor Offences Court acquitted Lazić, finding that the new weapons law no longer criminalized his conduct. The court remitted the case for reconsideration of confiscation under section 76.a of the Minor Offences Act.
During the remitted proceedings, police conducted a background check that found no incidents of improper use of the pistols and positive reports from neighbors. However, the check also revealed that Lazić had been convicted in 2017 of sexually abusing a child and was under probationary supervision. On 17 April 2020, the Zagreb Minor Offences Court ordered confiscation based on this unrelated 2017 conviction, citing public safety and moral grounds. The High Minor Offences Court upheld this decision on 27 May 2020, and the Constitutional Court dismissed Lazić’s complaint on 24 February 2021.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions). The Court held that the confiscation was arbitrary because the 2017 criminal conviction on which the domestic courts relied was entirely unrelated to the minor offence for which Lazić had been tried (refusal to allow police inspection) or to the pistols themselves. Critically, no incident of improper use had ever occurred, and authorities never sought to revoke Lazić’s firearms license through proper procedures.
The Court found that the domestic courts failed to properly exercise their discretionary power to order confiscation. Although the applicable statute allowed confiscation to protect public safety or on moral grounds, the courts’ examination was too narrow to satisfy the requirement of a “fair balance” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The courts entirely failed to consider Lazić’s personal circumstances: his disability, lifelong involvement in shooting, achievements as a competitor and coach, the sentimental value of the pistols to him, and whether confiscation would impose an excessive burden.
The Court concluded that the domestic courts’ interpretation and application of the confiscation statute lacked effective safeguards against arbitrary decision-making. The confiscation was not justified by any connection between Lazić’s criminal conviction and the firearms, nor by any demonstrated risk of misuse.
Key Takeaways
- Confiscation powers, even when statutorily discretionary, must include meaningful procedural safeguards against arbitrariness and require courts to consider all relevant circumstances.
- Courts must properly exercise discretion in confiscation cases by balancing the applicant’s personal circumstances, including disability, cultural or professional significance of the property, and prior lawful use, against the stated public safety justification.
- An unrelated prior criminal conviction cannot serve as a sufficient basis for confiscation of property without a demonstrated nexus between the conviction and the risk of misuse of that specific property.
- Absence of any incident of improper use, and failure to pursue revocation through proper statutory channels, undermines claims that confiscation is necessary for public safety.
Why It Matters
This judgment establishes important limits on state confiscation powers, particularly where the property has cultural, professional, or personal significance to the owner. Even individuals with serious criminal convictions retain property rights protection, and governments cannot confiscate property based on unrelated offenses without demonstrating a proportionate connection to public safety concerns. The Court’s emphasis on the necessity of considering individual circumstances reflects the principle that administrative discretion, though permissible, must be exercised rationally and with attention to all material factors.
The ruling underscores that procedural fairness requires courts to examine whether confiscation would impose an excessive burden on an individual given their personal situation, and that punitive or confiscatory measures cannot rest on thin connections between an applicant’s background and the property at issue. Croatia was ordered to pay €5,350 in compensation and costs, and Lazić was permitted to seek reopening of the domestic proceedings for reconsideration under proper legal standards.