CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mai 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 29 May 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 41845/12 Lorence EL OZAIR against Romania lodged on 18 May 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged interference with the applicant’s right to protection of his property caused by the confiscation by the customs office of the amount of 80,000 US dollars (USD) which the applicant failed to declare when leaving Romania. In an administrative offence report no.   134 of 17 October 2010, the customs office gave the applicant an 8,000   Romanian lei (RON) fine (the maximum allowed by law) and confiscated the amount found as required by Articles 56 § 3 and 653   §   1   (i) of Government Decision No. 707/2006 on the Regulation concerning the application of the Customs Code. The administrative offence report was subsequently upheld by the Bucharest County Court in a final decision no.   270 of 19 January 2012. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   2.     If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see Ismayilov v. Russia , no.   30352/03, 6   November 2008, Grifhorst v. France , no. 28336/02, 26 February 2009 and Gabrić v. Croatia , no. 9702/04, 5 February 2009)?