CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Communicated on 8 October 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 51599/11 Savco JAKIMOVSKI and KARI PREVOZ DOO SV. NIKOLE against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 8 August 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The first applicant, Mr Savčo Jakimovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1967. The second applicant, Kari Prevoz d.o.o. Sv. Nikole, is a company founded by the first applicant and incorporated in the respondent State. They are represented before the Court by Mr T. Torov, a lawyer practising in Štip. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 10 March 2008 the first applicant entered the respondent State at the border crossing point C.I. Novo Selo, driving a truck loaded with commercial goods. After a customs officer had allegedly examined the truck and the relevant documents, the applicant continued driving to the customs terminal in Bitola (approximately 200 kilometres away) where the customs duty for the transported goods was apparently paid. It appears that on the same day the custom authorities seized the applicant’s truck and the transported goods. On 11 March 2008 the Bitola branch of the Customs Office ( Царинска управа ) requested that the Commission for Customs-related Minor Offences ( Комисија за одлучување по царински прекршок , “the Commission”) initiated minor-offence proceedings against the first applicant. The request stated that a certain document (“ ЕЦД-то за транспорт“ ) had not been registered by the C.I. Novo Selo, the customs checking-point where the first applicant had entered the respondent State, which amounted to a minor offence punishable under the Customs Act. In the request, the value of the transported goods was set at 30,890 euros (EUR). On 30 May 2008 the first applicant’s representative requested that the Customs Office accelerate the proceedings. In this connection he argued that the truck had been held by the Office for three months; that his family had no other sources of income; that a bank, which had given him loan to buy the truck, intended to sell their apartment, under which a charging order had been recorded in respect of the bank; and that the owner of the goods had threatened that he would sue him and claim compensation. He also invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. On 26 June 2008 a valuation record was prepared in respect of the truck, the value of which was estimated to a total of 805,000 Macedonian denars. On 11 July 2008 the Commission convicted the first applicant for a minor offence under the Customs Act imposing a fine in the equivalent to EUR 15,000 and it confiscated the truck and the goods which had been transported. On 8 May 2009 the Administrative Court quashed the Commission’s decision, finding that the Commission had changed the elements of the offence as formulated in the initial request. On 22 June 2009 the Commission again established that the first applicant had committed a minor offence under the Customs Act, namely that the customs transit declaration ( царинска транзитна декларација ) had not been registered by the customs authority at the moment of entering the State, i.e. that the applicant did not submit the transported goods for inspection at the moment of entering the State. The Commission fined the first applicant with the equivalent to EUR 1,500. In determining the fine, the Commission took, as a mitigating circumstance, the fact that the first applicant had reported, on his own motion, the import of the goods to the customs authority in Bitola. It also ordered the confiscation of the transported goods and the truck, which, as it found, was owned by the perpetrator of the offence. On 8 July 2009 the first applicant lodged an administrative-dispute claim (тужба за управен спор) against the Commission’s decision. He challenged the facts established by the Commission and argued that it had erred on the substantive law. He also reiterated his arguments regarding the charging order over his apartment and the absence of any other source of income, besides the transportation of goods. On 2 February 2010 the Administrative Court dismissed the first applicant’s claim finding that the Commission had correctly confiscated the truck. It found that the second applicant, a limited liability company established by a single owner, was the owner of the truck. The court held that the second applicant, as a transporter, was liable for the actions and omissions of the first applicant, who was its statutory representative. On 22   November 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the first applicant’s appeal and upheld the Administrative Court’s judgment. This latter judgment was served on the applicants on 23 March 2011. B. Relevant domestic law 1. Customs Act Under section 50 § 1, the goods which reach the custom authorities at the border crossing point or in another place which the custom authorities determined or approved, is submitted to the authorities for inspection by the person who entered the goods in the custom area or, if needed, by the person responsible for the transport of the goods which entered the custom area. Section 51 provides that the provisions of section 50 do not exclude the application of the rules concerning goods which have been submitted for custom proceedings, but not for inspection to the custom authorities. Under section 263 § 1 point 5, a fine in the range between EUR 5.000 and EUR 100.000 euros in Macedonian denars will be imposed to a legal person which fails to submit for inspection to the custom authorities the transported goods. Under section 263 § 3 a fine of EUR 500 to 15.000 euros in Macedonian denars will be imposed to an individual who commits the same offence. Under section 267 §§ 1 and 2, the goods which are subject to the minor offence of section 263 points 1-9 and section 265 of the Act will be confiscated, even if they are not owned by the perpetrator of the offence, if the owner of the goods knew or could have known that the goods were subject to the offence. Under section 269 § 1, the means of transport that are used for transport or transfer across the State border or the customs area of the goods which are subject to a minor offence under section 263 of the Act will be confiscated, if the value of the goods exceeds 20% of the value of the means of transport, and the owner of the means of transport knew or ought to have known that it would be used for such a transport or transfer. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that the confiscation of the truck and commercial goods violated their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES         1. Can the applicants claim to be a “victim” of a violation of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 regarding the confiscation of the transported goods? 2. Was the confiscation of the truck and the goods in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in the public interest? If so, was it necessary and proportionate, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?