CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 24 February 2020 Published on 16 March 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 14359/13 Nurbek Atantayevich KADYROV against Ukraine lodged on 6 February 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the proportionality of the sanction imposed on the applicant, a Kyrgyz national, for his failure to declare cash exceeding 10,000 euros (EUR) when crossing the Ukrainian border: confiscation of the entire amount of cash he had (74,000 United States dollars (USD)) combined with a fine of about the same amount. It further raises the issue of fairness of the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant, as the hearings in his case were held by the domestic courts in his absence. The applicant alleges that his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention were breached in his case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular given his absence from the court hearings (see also Nadtochiy v. Ukraine , no. 7460/03,   §§ 20-22, 15 May 2008)?   2.     Did the confiscation of the entire amount which the applicant did not declare to the Ukrainian customs authorities, combined with a fine imposed on him in this respect, constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention? If so, did it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicant, regard being had in particular to the severity of the sanction (see   Sadocha v. Ukraine , no.   77508/11, §§ 22 to 37, 11 July 2019)?