CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mai 2022

.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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 30 May 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 71529/14 Î.M. BECOR S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 24 October 2014 communicated on 11 May 2022   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the levy of additional import duties and imposition of penalties on the applicant company after assigning another classification code to goods imported four years before. In particular, in 2008 ‑ 2012 the applicant company imported substances, which at the time were classified as medicines by the National Medicines Agency. In 2012 the Customs Service reclassified the substances as dietary supplements and levied additional VAT and customs duties on imports from 2008 to 2012, and imposed penalties. In 2014 the Supreme Court of Justice reversed the judgments issued by lower courts in the applicant company’s favour and rejected its appeal in a final decision. In two other sets of proceedings on a similar reclassification, in 2013 and 2014 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the applicant company’s appeals. The applicant company complains of a violation of its rights under Article1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant company been deprived of its possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V; Polimerkonteyner, TOV v. Ukraine , no. 23620/05, §§ 16-17, 24   November 2016)?