CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 octobre 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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } Published on 30 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 22146/20 Aco KITANOVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 3 June 2020 communicated on 13 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the impounding by the forestry police in misdemeanour proceedings of the applicant’s lorry while he was transporting lumber (that activity having been his main source of income). By a decision of 4 July 2019 the Veles Court of First Instance found the applicant guilty of not having a permit ( испратница ) for the transport of lumber and therefore fined him 2,000 euros and ordered the confiscation of the lorry in accordance with the relevant law. The courts at two levels of jurisdiction dismissed the applicant’s ensuing claim challenging the fine and the confiscation order, finding that the confiscation of the lorry and the lumber had been mandatory for the offence in question. The applicant complains that the confiscation of his lorry had violated his property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the confiscation of the applicant’s lorry 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, was the confiscation imposed in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in the public interest? Was it necessary and proportionate, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 ( see Andonoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 16225/08, §§ 31-41, 17 September 2015, and Aktiva DOO v. Serbia , no. 23079/11, §§ 76-87, 19 January 2021)?