CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 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 11 October 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 55347/17 Besim NEZIRI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 26 July 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns misdemeanour proceedings in which the customs authorities imposed a fine on the applicant in the amount of 1,500   euros (EUR) and confiscated EUR   12,300 that he had failed to declare to the customs authorities upon leaving the respondent State. In the subsequent proceedings, the Administrative Court remitted the case for fresh examination finding that the customs authorities had failed to consider whether partial confiscation, as provided for in section 57(3) of the Foreign Currency Act, would have been more appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The Higher Administrative Court overturned that decision and dismissed the applicant’s administrative action. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the confiscation of the applicant’s money in the amount of EUR   12,300 strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the applicant’s right of property 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, §   39, 5 February 2009; and Boljević v. Croatia , no.   43492/11, §   45, 31   January 2017)?