CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 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 4 September 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 41790/16 Kadrı ERJUZ against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 12 July 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns misdemeanour proceedings in which the national customs authorities confiscated 60,000 Swiss francs and 18,000   euros from the applicant for having failed to declare them upon leaving the respondent State. The proceedings were eventually discontinued since the prosecution had become time-barred. It appears that no final decision was taken in respect of the confiscation. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was he required to lodge a claim under the general rules of civil proceedings, in particular, a claim for unjust enrichment? The Government are invited to provide the Court with any relevant domestic case-law in this regard.   2.     If so, was the confiscation of the monetary funds in compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Ismayilov v. Russia, no.   30352/03, § 38, 6 November 2008; Gabrić v. Croatia, no.   9702/04, §§   36-39, 5 February 2009, and Boljević v. Croatia , no. 43492/11, §§ 42-45, 31   January 2017)?