CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 avril 2026

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } Published on 20 April 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 46445/19 Kostyantyn Dmytrovych DOTSENKO against Ukraine lodged on 20 August 2019 communicated on 2 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern an alleged breach by the applicant of customs regulations in the course of customs clearance of a vehicle imported into Ukraine and sanctions imposed as a result: confiscation of the imported vehicle and a fine in the amount of the value of the vehicle. On 20 July 2017 the applicant imported into Ukraine a car purchased in Germany. When crossing the State border, he submitted to the customs authorities a sale agreement indicating that he had purchased the car for 20,840 euros (EUR). On 12 July 2018 a private entity carried out the customs clearance of the vehicle on the applicant’s behalf. The customs value of the vehicle for the purposes of clearance was approximately EUR 24,100. On 4 January 2019, the customs authorities received a letter from the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine informing them that, based on cooperation with the German authorities, documents had been obtained indicating that the actual purchase price of the vehicle was EUR 33,605.04. On 15 February 2019 on the basis of that information, an administrative offence report was drawn up against the applicant under Article 483 § 1 of the Customs Code of Ukraine (concealment of goods from customs control). According to the report, when crossing the customs border the applicant had submitted documents containing false information as to the value of the vehicle, which resulted in unpaid customs duties amounting to UAH   156,498.37 (approximately EUR 5,100 at the material time). On 19 April 2019 the first-instance court found the applicant guilty as charged and imposed the only sanction prescribed by that provision, namely a fine equal to 100% of the value of the vehicle, along with its confiscation. That decision was upheld on appeal on 10 July 2019, becoming final. The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that the sanction imposed on him was unlawful and disproportionate. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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 )?