CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 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 7 November 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 54953/16 Hamdi GERGURI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 26 August 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns misdemeanour proceedings in which the national customs authorities issued a fine and confiscated 60,500   euros from the applicant for having failed to declare them upon entering the respondent State. The applicant paid the fine but unsuccessfully challenged the confiscation order by means of an administrative action. The domestic authorities and administrative courts held that the applicant should have reported the financial means upon crossing the border, and in default, the confiscation measure was applied in accordance with domestic law. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the confiscation of the applicant’s money 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, §§   36-39, 5   February 2009 and Boljević v. Croatia , no. 43492/11, §§ 42-45, 31   January 2017)?