CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 octobre 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 October 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 60895/09 Mykola Tymofiyovych KROSHNYY against Ukraine lodged on 5 November 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the proportionality of a confiscation measure applied to the applicant as a sanction in administrative (minor) offence proceedings against him. More specifically, on 10 April 2009 the police found out that the applicant had sold a golden ring of 2,35 gr for 550   Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (at the time equal to about 50 euros (EUR)) at a local market without having licence. An administrative offence report was drawn up in that regard. The applicant admitted that, working as a school teacher, he had low income and that he had sought additional earnings by re-selling jewelleries. He voluntarily handed to the police almost 900 g of gold jewelleries (worth about EUR 20,000 if calculated on the basis of the value and the weight of the ring sold by the applicant – see above). On 26   May 2009 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court found him guilty of an administrative offence of carrying out entrepreneurial activity without licence (punishable by a fine and, optionally, by confiscation of the property concerned). While the lawfulness of the possession of the gold was not called into question, the court fined the applicant UAH 340 (about EUR 30   at the time) and ordered confiscation of all the jewelleries in question. By a final ruling of 26 June 2009, the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the confiscation measure in the present case constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant’s possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that measure lawful? What was the legal basis for it? 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)?