CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mars 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 April 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 40776/16 Mykola Dmytrovych GANUSHCHAK against Ukraine lodged on 6 July 2016 communicated on 16 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a punishment imposed on the applicant for a violation of customs regulations, namely bringing his car to Ukraine through the closed border checkpoint in Crimea. He was punished for this offence with the confiscation of his car combined with a fine which is equal to its value. The applicant complains that such punishment constituted an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and imposed a disproportionate and excessive burden on him.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the confiscation of the car, combined with a fine imposed on the applicant, constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that measure lawful and did it strike the requisite fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the applicant’s right of property, and did it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on him, regard being had in particular to the severity of the sanction (see, mutatis mutandis , Sadocha v. Ukraine , no.   77508/11,   §§   22 to 37,   11 July 2019)?