CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 2 September 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 83901/17 HOLLAND FARMING MAKEDONIJA DOO and Stefan DIMKOVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 12 December 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns customs misdemeanour proceedings in which the applicants were fined for failing to report to the authorities 240 bumblebees imported by the applicant company (whose estimated value was 10,824 denars (MKD)), thereby evading customs duties in the amount of MKD 1,949. The applicant company was fined with EUR 5,000 and its manager (the second applicant) was fined with EUR 1,000. The undeclared goods were seized. On 28 June 2017 the Higher Administrative Court finally upheld the fines imposed on the applicants. The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the fines were a disproportionate interference with their right to property. The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under Article   1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention (see Radomilja and Others v.   Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 124, 20 March 2018).   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the imposition of the fine constitute an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   2.     If so, was that interference necessary to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Mamidakis v.   Greece, no. 35533/04, §§ 40-48, 11 January 2007)?