CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 janvier 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 104 January 2008 Jucys v. Lithuania - 5457/03 Judgment 8.1.2008 [Section II] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Prolonged inability to enjoy proceeds from customs auction: violation   Facts : The applicant was arrested on suspicion of smuggling mink furs, but was ultimately acquitted in 1997. However, the goods were forfeited and auctioned, being of a perishable nature. The applicant brought civil proceedings in order to obtain compensation for the forfeited goods. The proceedings lasted over eight years and six months and the applicant was eventually awarded compensation in the amount of the auction proceeds, from which the auction expenses (15% of the total sum) were deducted. The applicant also brought a second civil action, claiming that the furs had been sold at a price of about 33% less than their market value. However, these proceedings were stayed and, apparently, have never been resumed. Law : The forfeiture and the sale of furs were customs measures for the control of imports and so concerned the control of the use of property within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court recalled that any seizure or confiscation entailed damage which, however, should not be more extensive than that which was the inevitable. Likewise, an “innocent” owner of smuggled goods should in principle be entitled to recover the forfeited items. Following his acquittal, the applicant was able to claim the actual proceeds of the auction. However, it had taken more than eight and a half years for the courts to resolve the matter, even though it presented no complexities, as the facts had already been determined in the criminal proceedings against him. Consequently, after going through the strain of an ill-founded criminal prosecution, and losing his possessions which had hurriedly been auctioned off as perishable goods, the applicant had been precluded from enjoying the auctioned fruits of those possessions for many years. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 25,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes