CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 November 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 6070/16 Atila GOKSU against Serbia lodged on 20 January 2016 communicated on 11 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a Belgian national, was crossing a border between Serbia and Croatia together with two other foreign nationals, while carrying approximately 2,7 kg of gold jewellery in his car. The Serbian border authorities seized the jewellery. At the end of the criminal proceedings the applicant was found guilty of smuggling attempt, sentenced conditionally to one year’s imprisonment and fined with 300,000 RSD (approximately 2,500   EUR). Furthermore, the applicant’s car was permanently confiscated by the custom authorities on the ground of being used for carrying the smuggled goods. By a decision of 15 July 2015 (served on the applicant on 20 July 2015), the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint concerning the confiscation inadmissible. The applicant alleges that the forfeiture of his car was a disproportionate measure and amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the forfeiture of the applicant’s car constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference justified under the second paragraph of Article 1? In particular: (a)     was it established by law? (b)     was it done in pursuit of a legitimate aim? (c)     did the interference strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests and the right of the applicant, regard being had to the purpose and severity of the measures ( see , Grifhorst v. France , no.   28336/02, 26 February 2009; Gabrić v. Croatia, no. 9702/04, 5   February 2009; and Ismayilov v. Russia, no. 30352/03, 6 November 2008)?