CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD4EAAB82 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; font-style:italic } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s86637692 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 16 June 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 4841/17 Taras Igorovych DOBROMIL against Ukraine and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 26 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern an alleged breach by the applicants of customs regulations in the course of customs clearance of goods imported into Ukraine and sanctions imposed as a result: confiscation of the imported goods and a fine (for further details see the attached table). Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the administrative offence proceedings in their cases were unfair, on account in particular of domestic courts’ failure to give due consideration to important arguments put forward by them, including the lack of criminal intent on their part, and to give due consideration to supporting evidence. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain, directly or in substance, that the sanctions imposed on them were unlawful and disproportionate. The applicant in application no. 33089/17 also complains that the penalty in his respect was time-barred. The applicants in applications nos. 4841/17, 33089/17 and 50215/18 further complain, under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention, that the administrative offence proceedings were unfair and therefore did not constitute an effective remedy.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Applications nos. 4841/17, 33089/17 and 50215/18 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him/her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular in view of the alleged failure of the domestic courts to give due consideration to relevant and important arguments put forward by the applicant to prove his/her innocence? 2.     Did the sanction imposed on the applicant by the domestic courts for the alleged breach of customs regulations constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant’s possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference lawful and compatible with the proportionality requirement under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Krayeva v. Ukraine , no. 72858/13, 13 January 2022 ) ? Application no. 39259/18 Did the sanction imposed on the applicant in connection with an alleged breach of customs regulations – by the final decision of the Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal on 28 February 2018 – including the order to pay the value of the goods, given that their confiscation was allegedly no longer possible, constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant’s possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference lawful and compatible with the proportionality requirement under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Krayeva v. Ukraine , no.     72858/13, 13 January 2022)? All the applications In all cases, the Government are also requested to indicate whether the applicants have paid the sums ordered by the domestic courts and, if not, whether they remain under a legal obligation to do so. Relevant documents concerning the enforcement proceedings are also requested.     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Final judicial decision(s) Sanction imposed Ownership of Goods Offence Article (Customs Code) 1. 4841/17 Dobromil v.   Ukraine 04/01/2017 Taras Igorovych DOBROMIL 1981 Kyiv Ukrainian 1) Kyiv Court of Appeal, 07/07/2016   2) Kyiv Court of Appeal 07/09/2016 Confiscation of goods + fine: 100% of the value of the goods:   1) UAH 269,308.90 2) UAH 270,308.90 Third persons 472 2. 33089/17 Shkurko v.   Ukraine 28/04/2017 Ivan Ivanovych SHKURKO 1983 Kyiv Ukrainian Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal, 26/12/2016 Confiscation of goods + fine: 100% of the value of the goods:   UAH 483,301.80 Applicant 472 3. 39259/18 Zhytnikov v.   Ukraine 09/07/2018 Anatoliy Viktorovych ZHYTNIKOV 1979 Mykolayiv Ukrainian Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal, 28/02/2018 Confiscation of goods (replaced by an order to the applicant to pay their value) + fine: 100% of the value of the goods:   UAH 86,131.46 in total Third persons 483 4. 50215/18 Negoda v.   Ukraine 02/10/2018 Nataliya Vadymivna NEGODA 1986 Pokrov Ukrainian Kyiv Court of Appeal, 23/04/2018 Confiscation of goods and a fine in the amount of 100% of the value of the goods:   UAH 432,565.90 Third persons 472