CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 July 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 56735/22 Vugar BABAYEV against Georgia lodged on 29 November 2022 communicated on 19 June 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the seizure of a sum of money which the applicant had declared to the customs officials and the ongoing criminal investigation into its provenance. On 16   October 2017 the applicant travelled to Georgia. Upon his arrival at the Tbilisi Airport the applicant submitted a customs declaration indicating that he had been carrying 350,000 United States Dollars in cash. He was searched immediately and the cash was seized by the customs authorities. A criminal investigation into money laundering appears to have been opened on the same day. According to the applicant, the Azerbaijani prosecution service informed their Georgian counterparts that the cash had been obtained legally. At the time the application was lodged on 29   November 2022, the investigation was ongoing and the applicant had no access to the sum seized from him. His application to the domestic courts requesting that the criminal investigation be concluded in a timely manner and the seized sum be returned to him was not accepted for consideration on account of the absence of a procedural basis for such a request. The applicant relied on Article   6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the seizure by the authorities of the sum of money the applicant had declared at the airport amount to an interference with his peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 of the Convention? If so, (a)   was the interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? (b)   Did the interference in the present case impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Džinić v.   Croatia , no.   38359/13, §§   67-69, 17   May 2016)? (c)   could the applicant effectively challenge the seizure? 2.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable in the present case? If so, did the applicant have an effective access to a court, within the meaning of the provision in question?