CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 février 2021

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 8 February 2021 Published on 1 March 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 78658/14 REAGENT, TOV against Ukraine lodged on 11 December 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the customs authorities’ refusal to refund the overpaid amount of customs duty to the applicant company once the decision ordering the payment had been declared unlawful by the domestic courts. The applicant company challenged the customs office’s failure to return the money before the domestic courts. In the final decision taken on 28   August 2014 the Higher Administrative Court confirmed the right of the applicant company to have the overpaid amount refunded and declared unlawful the customs office’s inactivity in this respect. At the same time, the court refused to award the overpaid amount to the applicant company finding that the refund was possible only following a decision of the customs authorities. According to the applicant company, the overpaid amount of customs duty has never been returned to it. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant company complains that it has been arbitrarily deprived of its monetary assets.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the domestic authorities’ failure to return the applicant company the money paid in excess as customs duty compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the non-refund lawful? Did it pursue a legitimate aim in the public interest? Were the means employed proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved?