CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 20 October 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 46082/14 Mite ANASTASOV against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 13 June 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confiscation of the applicant’s vehicle. The custom authorities found that when brining the vehicle registered in Germany into the country, the applicant had failed to undergo the relevant import procedure. The applicant was fined and the vehicle was seized. As the proceedings eventually became time-barred, the Administrative Court discontinued them and lifted the fine. However, the Administrative Court found that the vehicle could not be returned to the applicant as under the relevant domestic law the confiscation was mandatory. This finding was upheld by the Higher Administrative Court. qUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did the confiscation of the applicant’s vehicle strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the interests of the applicant within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Andonoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 16225/08, 17 September 2015)?