CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2025

.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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 27 January 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 30177/17 Murat ALKAN against Serbia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 10 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The present applications concern the confiscation by misdemeanour courts of the lawfully acquired gold coins ( zlatnici ), gold bars ( zlatne pločice ) and allegedly personal gold jewellery ( zlatni nakit ), which the applicants individually had been carrying while transiting Serbia and had been found guilty of a failure to declare them to the Serbian customs officers at the entry border-crossing points. The applicants complain under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that the confiscation, in addition to the imposition of fines, constituted an unlawful and/or disproportionate interference with their right of property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, respectively, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, by the permanent confiscation of their respective gold coins, bars and jewellery?   2.     In the affirmative, were the interferences justified? In particular: (a)     were they established by law? (b)     were they done in pursuit of a legitimate aim? (c)     did the interferences strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests and the right of the applicants, regard being had to the purpose and severity of the preventive measure, and the gravity of the committed misdemeanour? In particular, did the interference in each particular case impose an individual and excessive burden on the applicant, respectively (see, mutatis mutandis , AGOSI v. the United Kingdom , 24   October 1986, §§   52 ‑ 53, Series A no.   108 ; Gyrlyan v.   Russia , no.   35943/15, §   24, 9   October 2018, and Yaylalı v. Serbia , no. 15887/15, §§   47-59, 17   September 2024)?   In view of the above questions, the parties are further invited to provide and comment on the domestic regulations and practice relevant at the time of the seizure and confiscation of the goods, in respect of:   (i)     the maximum weight limit (quantity) and/or value of personal gold or that intended for commercial or investment purposes that individual travellers were allowed to carry while entering or transiting the Serbian customs territory, without being required to declare or present it to the national customs authorities;   (ii)     the relevant regulations and customs proceedings concerning the applicants’ duty, as transit passengers, to the declare the gold coins and/or gold jewellery to the Serbian customs authorities; having regard to the relevant decisions, have the applicants been convicted for failure to declare valuables or for failure to declare the articles intended to be imported and therefore subject to the customs duties; and   (iii)     what was the aim of the initial temporary seizure of the undeclared goods, and of the confiscation, as a sanction, in this context.   3.     Lastly, the Government are invited to comment on the following conclusions of the Constitutional Court while rejecting the applicants’ complaints in this context: (a) “that Article   58 of the Constitution (the peaceful enjoyment of possessions) does not protect the property which is object of criminal and other offences”; and (b) “if the interference had been lawful and properly reasoned [...], it was unnecessary to examine the applicant’s arguments about a lack of proportionality”.       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Representative’s name Location 1. 30177/17 Alkan v. Serbia 11/04/2017 Murat ALKAN 1969 Esenyurt / ISTANBUL Turkish Saša MUTIĆ Belgrade 2. 34707/17 Dogru v. Serbia 02/05/2017 Abdurahman DOGRU 1989 Vienna Turkish Saša MUTIĆ Belgrade 3. 51679/19 Çelik v. Serbia 24/09/2019 Hasan ÇELIK 1975 Beringen Belgian Saša MUTIĆ Belgrade