CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 novembre 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 } Communicated on 20 November 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 15553/15 S.C. ZORINA INTERNATIONAL S.R.L. against Romania lodged on 23 March 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged interference with the applicant company’s right to protection of property caused by the sanction imposed on it by the Constanţa Finance Inspectorate ( Garda Financiară ) for failure to emit receipts ( bon fiscal ) for the sale of products amounting to 179   Romanian   lei (RON) (approximately 40 euros (EUR) at that time). In accordance with the applicable law (Government Emergency Ordinance No.   28/1999 on the obligation of commercial entities to use the fiscal cash registers), the applicant company received a fine of RON   8,000 (approximately EUR   1,800 at that time), the amount of RON   179 was confiscated, and its activity was automatically suspended for a period of three months. The applicant company objected to this sanction, arguing mainly that it was disproportionately harsh. In a final decision of 24   September 2014 the Constanţa County Court dismissed the objection. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   2.     If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (see, mutatis mutandis , Grifhorst v.   France , no. 28336/02, 26 February 2009; Patrikova v.   Bulgaria , no.   71835/01, 4 March 2010; and Andonoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 16225/08, 17 September 2015) or to secure the payment of penalties within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1?