CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 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 9 July 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 44773/16 Zoran MILACHIKJ against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 29 July 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In misdemeanour proceedings the applicant was charged with customs offence, namely that he had used an imported car although he had known or ought to have known that the car had not been declared to the customs authorities and import customs duties had not been paid. In those proceedings he also had his car confiscated. After the proceedings had been discontinued because of the absolute time-bar, the State restored the car in the possession of the applicant, as the “perpetrator of the crime” ( му се враќа на сторителот на прекршокот ). Subsequently, he unsuccessfully claimed compensation for the reduced value of the car (14,615 US dollars) of which he had been disposed for over six and a half years while the misdemeanour proceedings were pending. In the decision dismissing the applicant’s compensation claim, the Court of Appeal stated that “[the misdemeanour proceedings against the applicant] had not been discontinued because the offence had not been committed ... [The applicant] was required to declare the car to the Customs Office (because) he had known [at the relevant time] that he had been driving it with false registration plates.” The Supreme Court further added that “[the Customs Office] was bound by law to ... institute misdemeanour proceedings against the perpetrator, namely [the applicant]”. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Does Article 6 § 2 of the Convention apply in the present case (see Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, §§ 92-108, ECHR 2013)?   2.     If so, were the decisions of the civil courts (see above) and the supporting reasoning for the refusal to award the applicant compensation compatible with the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention?