CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 avril 2018

.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 16 April 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 77508/11 Vasil SADOCHA against Ukraine lodged on 6 December 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application concerns the lawfulness and proportionality of the confiscation of the entire amount of cash (31,000 euros) which the applicant, a Czech national, did not declare upon crossing the Ukrainian border being allegedly unaware that there had been any limitations in this respect. It further raises the issue of fairness of the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant, as the hearings in the case were held in the applicant’s absence. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular given his absence from the court hearings (see also Nadtochiy v. Ukraine , no. 7460/03,   §§ 20-22, 15 May 2008)?   2.     Did the confiscation of the entire amount which the applicant did not declare to the Ukrainian customs authorities constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that measure lawful and did it strike the requisite fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the applicant’s right of property, and did it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on him, regard being had in particular to the severity of the sanction (see, for example, Gabrić v.   Croatia , no. 9702/04, 5 February 2009)?   The Government are requested to submit all relevant documents concerning the notification of the applicant of the impugned proceedings and their outcome.