CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sFF093797 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 27 January 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 52930/20 Andrey FATEEV against Serbia lodged on 21 November 2020 communicated on 10 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a temporary seizure by the customs of the applicant’s quad and a vehicle used for its transport, as well as subsequent confiscation of the quad, as a sanction for a committed customs-related misdemeanour while transiting through Serbia. In particular, the applicant, a Russian national and Bulgarian resident, transported to Bulgaria an amphibious quad bike/ATV that he had bought in Finland, while carrying a transit declaration carnet within the EU, evidence of the goods’ value of 19,900 euros (EUR) and a paid customs duty of EUR   4,700 in Finland. On 26   December 2013, on the entry cross border point to Serbia, the customs officials performed a customs control and seized both the quad and the vehicle as the means of its transport. Following three acquittals and corresponding referrals, the Novi Sad Appellate Misdemeanour Court ultimately overruled the first-instance decision and found the applicant guilty of a customs-related misdemeanour of failing to provide a declaration on goods transiting through Serbia. It fined him approximately EUR   850 and imposed a mandatory confiscation of the quad in accordance with the Customs Act. Lastly, on 19   May 2020, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal, being satisfied with the relevant court’s reasoning in the last-instance decision. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 11 June 2020. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the length and fairness of the customs-related misdemeanour proceedings. He further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the initial seizure was prolonged, as well as that preventive measure of confiscation presents is disproportionate in the circumstances of the case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the length of the custom-related misdemeanour proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention? Also, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the misdemeanour against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, by the initial seizure of the undeclared quad and the vehicle as the means of its transport, as well as by the permanent confiscation of the quad?   In the affirmative, was the interference justified? In particular:   (a)     was it in accordance with the law? (b)     did it pursue a legitimate aim? (c)   did the confiscation of the goods 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 this preventive measure and the essence of the applicant’s misconduct? In particular, did the interference impose an individual and excessive burden on the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis , Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy , [GC], no.   22774/93, §   59, ECHR 1999-V; and Milosavljev v.   Serbia , no.   15112/07, §§ 55-62, 12 June 2012)?   The Government are further invited to provide, together with the pertinent documentation, and/or comment on the relevant domestic regulations and practice, in respect of:   (i)     the relevant customs proceedings that the applicant, a passenger in transit, failed to follow while entering the respondent State’s territory and whether the interference corresponded to the essence of the misdemeanour in question.   (ii)     whether the interference was necessary (a) to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see, mutatis mutandis , Gabrić v.   Croatia , no.   9702/04, §§   35-39, 5   February 2009), or (b) to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court (see, mutatis mutandis , Shorazova v. Malta , no.   51853/19, § 104, 3 March 2022)?   (iii)     the mandatory nature of the confiscation as a protective measure provided by Article 298 of the Customs Act and the practice of the misdemeanour courts in cases same or similar to the applicant’s.