CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 février 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 24 February 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 16947/22 DEVEKOM D.O.O. NIŠ against Serbia lodged on 31 March 2022 communicated on 5 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2009 the customs authorities ordered the applicant company, in twelve sets of proceedings, to pay customs duties and value-added tax on goods imported from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The applicant appealed against those decisions but since the appeal did not have a suspensive effect, it had to pay the amounts due immediately. After several remittals, the customs authorities decided in 2019 that the goods imported by the applicant company were not subject to customs duties, refunded the amount paid in that respect to the applicant and dismissed its claim for interest. As to the value-added tax, they instructed the applicant to claim a refund from the tax authorities. By its decisions of 14 October 2021 and 24 February 2022, the Constitutional Court found that the length of the customs proceedings had been excessive, awarded 3,600 euros in total to the applicant for non-pecuniary damage in that respect, and rejected its complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that it had to bear an excessive burden because the customs authorities refunded the customs duties paid by it after a considerable period of time without interest.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention because the customs authorities refunded the customs duties paid by the applicant company after a considerable period of time without interest (see   Guiso-Gallisay v.   Italy   (just satisfaction) [GC], no.   58858/00, § 105, 22   December 2009)? If so, which interest rate would have ensured a fair balance between the public interest and the interest of the present applicant (see   Meïdanis v. Greece, no. 33977/06 , §§ 28-32, 22 May 2008)?   2.     What was the inflation rate in Serbia during the relevant period (2009-2019)?