CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 27 October 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40965/20 Mehmet Selim YILMAZ against Türkiye lodged on 25 August 2020 communicated on 6 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the seizure and subsequent confiscation of the applicant’s property. On 1 November 2015 1,800 phone chargers belonging to the applicant were seized during a police operation on suspicion of being smuggled goods. Following a criminal investigation, the applicant was indicted for the smuggling of 800 of those chargers. The indictment specified that the remaining 1,000 chargers had been legally imported. An expert report obtained during the proceedings before the Criminal Court of first instance confirmed that only 800 of the chargers had been unlawfully brought into the country, while the remaining 1,000 were lawfully imported. On 8 May 2018 the Criminal Court of first instance convicted the applicant of smuggling. It found that the seized items constituted smuggled goods and ordered the confiscation of all the goods seized during the investigation. The applicant’s subsequent appeal relying on the expert report was dismissed, and the Constitutional Court declared his individual application inadmissible. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the confiscation of 1,000 phone chargers which, according to both the indictment and the expert report, had not been considered as smuggled goods. He further alleges that the domestic courts failed to provide sufficient reasoning for their decision to treat these items as contraband, contrary to the findings of the expert report. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the domestic courts discharge their duty under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to provide relevant and sufficient reasoning regarding the confiscation of 1,000 phone chargers despite the findings of the expert report that these chargers had been imported lawfully (see   Mont Blanc Trading Ltd and Antares Titanium Trading Ltd v. Ukraine , no.   11161/08, §§   82-84, 14   January 2021; S .C. IMH Suceava S.R.L. v.   Romania , no.   24935/04, §§   31 ‑ 41, 29 October 2013; and Donadzé v. Georgia , no.   74644/01, §   35, 7   March 2006)?   2.     Did the confiscation of the applicant’s 1,000 phone chargers, which had not been considered as smuggled goods by the expert report, constitute a violation of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ( see Yaşaroğlu v.   Türkiye , no.   78661/11, §§ 51-81, 12 September 2023; Saraç and Others v.   Turkey , no.   23189/09, §§ 70-92, 30 March 2021 ; and Gereksar and Others v.   Turke y , nos.   34764/05 and 3 others, §§ 47-64, 1 February 2011)?   The parties are invited to inform the Court of the value of the confiscated 1,000   chargers on 1 November 2015, the date of their seizure.