CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 novembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 17 November 2020 Published on 7 December 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 52003/18 RADIKA PREVOZI DOO LJUBLJANA against North Macedonia lodged on 26 October 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the impounding by the custom authorities of the applicant company’s vehicle in customs-related misdemeanour proceedings against F., the vehicle’s driver (in which F. was fined). After two years and four months the custom authorities returned the vehicle to the applicant company, holding that the temporary confiscation was no longer necessary. Three court levels dismissed the applicant company’s ensuing compensation claim under section 141 of the Obligations Act , holding that the temporary confiscation of the vehicle had been lawful and based on a reasonable suspicion that a misdemeanour had been committed. The final decision was that of the Supreme Court of 28 February 2018 which was notified to the applicant company’s lawyer on 7 May 2018. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the temporary confiscation of the applicant company’s vehicle constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was it   imposed in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in the public interest? Was it necessary and proportionate, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1, having regard to all relevant factors, including the outcome of the civil proceedings for compensation brought by the applicant company (see Jakimovski and Kari Prevoz v. North Macedonia , no. 51599/11, § 50, 14 November 2019; see, mutatis mutandis, East West Alliance Limited v. Ukraine , no. 19336/04, §   204, 23 January 2014, and Atanasov and Ovcharov v. Bulgaria , no. 61596/00, 17 January 2008)?