CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD4EAAB82 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; font-style:italic } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } Published on 4 May 2026   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 27278/19 Viktor Oleksandrovych ALYEKSYEYENKO against Ukraine lodged on 11 May 2019 communicated on 13 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of customs regulations by the applicant during customs clearance of imported goods and sanctions imposed as a result, namely the confiscation of the goods combined with a fine in an amount equal to the value of the imported goods. The applicant, a customs broker employed by a private pharmaceutical company O., submitted on 9 July 2018 a preliminary customs declaration for medicinal products produced in Turkey and purchased by the O. company from a Spanish supplier. During customs control upon the arrival of the goods in Ukraine from Turkey, the customs authority identified discrepancies between the value indicated in the invoice used by the applicant for the declaration (88,747.20   euros (EUR)) and other documents discovered during an inspection of the vehicle, including a Turkish export declaration and an invoice, both indicating a lower value of the goods (EUR 29,582.40). On 10 July 2018 the customs authority issued an administrative offence report finding the applicant liable under Article 483 § 1 of the Customs Code for having concealed the goods imported by the O. company from the customs control by providing false data concerning their customs value. The applicant challenged the administrative offence report before a court, arguing,   inter alia , that he had not committed any offence. In particular, the invoice which he had used for the customs clearance had been correct: it had been issued to the O. company by the Spanish supplier in accordance with the trade agreement between the two companies concerning the goods at issue. The lower value indicated in the Turkish export documents and in the invoice revealed during the customs inspection, concerned a separate transaction between the Turkish manufacturer and the Spanish supplier and was therefore irrelevant for determining the customs value of the goods imported into Ukraine. The applicant contended that the authorities had incorrectly relied on third-party documents obtained from the driver during the vehicle inspection that bore no direct legal connection to his specific declaration. Furthermore, he argued, the objective element of the offence was missing because the goods were transported openly and all relevant transaction documents were properly submitted. On 2 October 2018 the Pershotravnevyi District Court of Chernivtsi discontinued the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant for lack of the constituent elements of an administrative offence. It noted that liability under Article 483 § 1 of the Customs Code required proof of direct intent to conceal goods and found that the case materials did not disclose any evidence of such intent on the part of the applicant. By a final judgment of 14 November 2018, the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the first ‑ instance court and held that the applicant, as a declarant, was liable for the provision of false data to the customs authorities in respect of the goods imported by the O. company. It held that the documents discovered during the inspection indicated that the actual value of the goods was EUR 29,582.40, that was approximately three times lower than the value declared by the applicant. The court also relied on an expert assessment of the value of the goods issued on 10 August 2018, which confirmed that the actual price was lower than that declared - 2,322,773.07 Ukrainian hryvnias ((UAH); approximately EUR 73,500 at the material time). The appellate court further considered that the value of the goods had been intentionally overstated in the declaration with a view to their subsequent sale on the market on the basis of the declared customs value. It ordered that the applicant pay a fine in the amount of which was equal to the value of the imported goods – UAH 2,322,773.07 – and that the goods be confiscated as provided for in Article 483 § 1 of the Customs Code. The applicant was further ordered to pay storage costs and court fees. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains, in substance, that the administrative offence proceedings in his case were unfair because of the Court of Appeal’s alleged failure to give due consideration to his relevant and important arguments and supporting evidence. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that the sanction imposed on him was unlawful and disproportionate and placed an excessive burden on him.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, 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?   2.     Did the sanction imposed on the applicant by the domestic courts for the alleged breach of customs regulations, in particular the fine, constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, did the interference meet the requirement of “lawfulness”, in particular as regards the foreseeability of the rules governing the attribution of liability between a customs broker and an importing company? Was the interference compatible with the proportionality requirement under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Krayeva v.   Ukraine , no. 72858/13, 13 January 2022 ) ?