CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6578C066 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 10 March 2020 Published on 30 March 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 61555/12 Mykhaylo Yevgenovych YERESKO against Ukraine and 3 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern an alleged breach by the applicants of customs rules when carrying out customs clearance of goods/vehicles imported to Ukraine and the sanctions imposed in this respect. Application no. 61555/12: In July 2009 the applicant, who was contracted by company “K.” as a customs agent, carried out customs clearance of goods imported by “K.” from Greece. In 2010, following a routine check by the customs authorities, it was established that the customs value of the goods had been wrongly calculated during the customs clearance in July 2009 in that the transport fees should have been also taken into account. The correct amount was therefore defined by the customs office on 1 June 2010 and “K.” was requested to pay additional duties, which it did. In October 2010, four months after the check had been completed and all fees paid by “K.”, the customs authorities requested the Greek customs office to provide information related to the goods imported by the “K.” to Ukraine in July 2009. In January 2012, on the basis of the information received from the Greek authorities, the customs office drew up reports on violation of customs rules in the course of the custom clearance of the goods July 2009. It was noted in particular that the price of the goods declared to the Ukrainian customs authorities was lower than the price declared at the Greek customs when exporting the goods, which resulted in reduced duties paid by the company “K.” to the state budget of Ukraine. On 3 March 2012, by two decisions, the customs office requested “K.” to pay the missing duties to the state budget. The latter refused having challenged the payment orders before the courts. By final judgement of the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea of 20 March 2012 the applicant was found guilty of having provided at the customs clearance in July 2009 declaration forms which contained false information as regards the price of the imported goods and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount equal to the full price of the goods (approximately 42,600 euros (EUR)). By final judgement of 5 November 2012 the Sevastopol Administrative Court of Appeal found the payment orders issued by the customs authorities to the “K.” company on 3 March 2012 unlawful. In doing so, it established, inter alia , that the request which had been sent to the Greek authorities was not based on the law and that the conclusion of the customs office that the wrong price of the goods had been given in the declaration forms at customs clearance in July 2009 was not based on appropriate evidence. Alleging, inter alia , that he was not the owner of the goods and carried out custom clearance on the basis of the documents (invoices) which had been provided to him by the “K.” company, the applicant complains that his conviction and the sanction imposed were unlawful, time-barred and disproportionate measures. He relies on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Application no. 30666/13 By its final judgment of 3 April 2013 the Kyiv Court of Appeal found the applicant, an entrepreneur, liable for a breach of customs regulations, which he had allegedly committed on 30 November 2012 by providing false data about the price of the items his company was importing to Ukraine. Confiscation of his cargo was ordered and a fine equal to the full price of the cargo (approximately EUR 34,163.97) was imposed on him. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his conviction and the sanction imposed were unlawful, time-barred and disproportionate measures. Application no. 35084/13 On 19 July 2012 the customs office drew up an administrative offence report against the applicant, a driver contracted by a transport company, and other drivers of that company for having provided false information related to trucks each of them was bringing to Ukraine at the company’s request on 13 July 2012. On 20 November 2012 the Chernihiv Regional Court of Appeal by its final judgment found the applicant guilty of an infringement of custom regulations. A fine equal to the full price of the truck (approximately EUR 37,370) was imposed on the applicant and confiscation of the truck driven by him ordered. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his conviction and the sanction imposed on him were unlawful, time ‑ barred and disproportionate measures. Application no. 72858/13 During customs clearance of imported goods in respect of her employer, the applicant declared goods’ price in US dollars and submitted the relevant invoice while setting the price in dollars instead of euros in that invoice was a mistake made by the seller to which the applicant, according to her, did not pay attention. She provided the correct invoice in euros only during a check by the customs office. Administrative offence reports were drawn up against the applicant in this respect. By final decision of the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal of 23 August 2013 the applicant was found guilty of having provided false data as regards the price of the goods during the customs clearance. A fine in the amount equal to the full price of the goods (approximately EUR 45,200) was imposed on her and confiscation of the goods ordered. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complains that the proceedings against her were unfair and, in particular, that the sanction imposed placed an excessive and disproportionate burden on her. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the sanctions imposed on the applicants by the domestic courts for the alleged breach of customs rules constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicants’ possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference lawful and compatible with the proportionality requirement under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Sadocha v. Ukraine , no.   77508/11, §§ 22 to   37, 11 July 2019)? APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality   Represented by 1 61555/12 Yeresko v. Ukraine 19/09/2012 Mykhaylo Yevgenovych YERESKO 1964 Simferopol Ukrainian     2 30666/13 Laptyev v.   Ukraine 29/04/2013 Vadym Ivanovych LAPTYEV 1967 Kyiv Ukrainian   Roman Anatoliyovych SHCHEDRIN 3 35084/13 Romanyuk v. Ukraine 16/05/2013 Vitaliy Grygorovych ROMANYUK 1958 Kharkiv Ukrainian     4 72858/13 Krayeva v.   Ukraine 05/11/2013 Agnesa Eduardivna KRAYEVA 1986 Zaporizhzhya Ukrainian