CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 novembre 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 11 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 62972/19 DEVSAN TEKSTİL İÇ VE DIŞ TİC. LTD. against Türkiye lodged on 27 November 2019 communicated on 20 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant company by the domestic courts for the non-restitution of its goods by the customs administration. The applicant company alleges that the compensation awarded was far below the real value of the goods and that such a situation amounted to an unlawful and disproportionate interference with its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, has an excessive individual burden been imposed on the applicant company taking into account the fact that the compensation the applicant company received appears to be much lower than the value of the goods indicated in the expert report as well as the revenue from the sale of the goods by the Customs Administration (see, mutatis mutandis , Tendam v.   Spain , no.   25720/05 , §§   50-51, 13 July 2010)?   2.     What was the Customs Administration’s general practice for determining the value of imported goods at the relevant time?