CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2023

.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 } .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 } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 30 January 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24030/19 Branislav DIMITROV against North Macedonia lodged on 30 April 2019 communicated on 10 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the seizure and subsequent confiscation by the custom authorities of the applicant’s stereo amplifier in customs-related misdemeanour proceedings (concerning failure to undergo the relevant import procedure) against the applicant which later had been discontinued as the prescription period had expired. The custom authorities held that the stereo amplifier could not be returned to the applicant as it might be used again for the commission of the misdemeanour in question. They relied on Article 100-a of the Criminal Code (applicable mutatis mutandis to misdemeanour proceedings) which provided mandatory confiscation of objects which were intended to be used or were used to commit an offence. The findings were upheld by the administrative courts at two levels of jurisdiction. The final decision of the Higher Administrative Court was notified to the applicant’s lawyer on 28 January 2019. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his stereo amplifier had been seized and thereafter confiscated despite the fact that he had never been convicted.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, did the confiscation of the applicant’s stereo amplifier strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the interests of the applicant within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention (see Aktiva DOO v. Serbia , no. 23079/11, §§ 76-87, 19   January 2021)?