CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 juin 2005

.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. 76 June 2005 Baklanov v. Russia - 68443/01 Judgment 9.6.2005 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deprivation of property Forfeiture of non-declared money at customs checkpoint of Moscow airport: violation   Facts : The applicant, who lives in Riga, asked an acquaintance to deliver 250,000 US dollars (“USD”) to Moscow, where he intended to go and live (for this purpose, he had previously negotiated a real estate deal with a Moscow-based agent). The applicant’s acquaintance failed to declare the money at the customs checkpoint and was charged with smuggling. The District Court convicted him on this ground under Article 188-1 of the Criminal Code. As regards the money, it was forfeited to the Treasury as an object of smuggling. The appeal by the applicant’s acquaintance was refused, as was an application for supervisory review by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court claiming that smuggled money could only be confiscated if proven to have been acquired criminally. The applicant complains that the District Court forfeited his, an innocent party’s, money without any basis in law. Law : Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The seizure of the applicant’s money had constituted an interference with his property rights within the meaning of this provision. This Article authorised a deprivation of possessions or a State’s right to control the use of property if these were “prescribed by law”. As regards the requirement of lawfulness in the present case, the Court recalled that confiscation of forfeited goods was not provided for by Article 188-1 of the Criminal Code, which served as a basis for the conviction of the applicant’s acquaintance (as was the case prior to the reform of this piece of legislation). The Code of Criminal Procedure permitted the forfeiture of “criminally acquired” assets or money, but there was no evidence to the effect that the applicant’s money had been acquired in such a manner, nor did it appear that the national courts had relied upon this provision forfeiting the money. As to the rulings of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court relied upon by the Government in support of their arguments, these could not serve as an established interpretation of domestic legislation on the basis of which the forfeiture could be effected. Thus, having regard to the national courts’ lack of reference to any legal provision as a basis for the forfeiture of an important sum of money, and to the apparent inconsistencies of case-law compared to national legislation, the Court considered that the law in question was not formulated with such precision as to enable the applicant to foresee the consequences of his actions. It followed that the interference with the applicant’s property could not be considered lawful. Conclusion : violation (six votes to one). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 3,000 euros in respect of 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