CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 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 19 October 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27612/07 Hacı Ahmet GÜMRÜKÇÜOĞLU against Turkey lodged on 22 June 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the seizure of the applicant’s vehicle as a result of an investigation for alleged oil smuggling. At the end of the criminal proceedings, the court acquitted the applicant of the charge against him and ordered that the vehicle be returned to the applicant once the decision became final. After having had his vehicle returned, the applicant lodged a case before an administrative court, seeking compensation for the period during which he could not benefit from the vehicle. The administrative courts however rejected the applicant’s claims. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did the seizure of the applicant’s vehicle for a period of two years strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the interests of the applicant within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Borzhonov v. Russia , no. 18274/04, 22 January 2009)? To what extent did the criminal court consider any other measure envisaged by domestic law instead of seizure the vehicle at issue? Did the domestic court impose on the applicant any other measure alongside the seizure at issue?