CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juin 2024

.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 } .sF46CA48C { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#414142 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 1 July 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 2016/24 Maksims IVANOVS against Latvia lodged on 11 January 2024 communicated on 12 June 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about allegedly disproportionate costs imposed on him for the storage of a third party’s car in the context of criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 22   January   2019 the applicant was detained on suspicion of a drug ‑ related offence while driving the car where illegal substances were found. On 20   March   2019 the car was seized and parked in a special parking lot. On 8   April   2019 an investigator dismissed a request by the applicant to lift the seizure and to return the car to its owner. On 26   August   2020, during the trial, the applicant requested that the seizure be lifted. By its judgement of 4   February   2021 a first-instance court convicted the applicant but lifted the car’s seizure as there were no grounds to consider that it had been criminally acquired. Nor were there any grounds to confiscate it. That judgement became final on 20   June   2023 when the Senate of the Supreme Court refused to institute proceedings on points of law. By a final decision of 18   September   2023 the domestic courts ordered the applicant to pay EUR   1,998.33 in respect of the costs related to the storage of the seized car from 1   April   2019 to 20   June   2023 (1,542 days in total). The applicant complains under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that the obligation to bear the costs related to the storage of the seized car for the entire period was a disproportionate interference with his rights since it had been established that the car was not a criminally acquired property and could not be confiscated as an object of a criminal offence.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, in that he had to bear the costs for the storage of the car?   2.     If so, was that lawful and proportionate to the aims under the second paragraph of that provision? In particular, has the decision to impose on the applicant the costs related to the storage of the car in question been based on relevant and sufficient reasons and has a fair balance been struck between demands of the general interest and the requirement of the protection of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as required by of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1?