CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 mars 2022

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 265 August-September 2022 FU QUAN, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic (referral) - 24827/14 Judgment 17.3.2022 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 Control of the use of property Protracted retention of applicant company’s merchandise after acquittal of director and associate in criminal proceedings in the context of which it had been seized: case referred to the Grand Chamber The applicant company’s merchandise was seized in the context of criminal proceedings against its managing director and associate. It was however, retained by the authorities for almost a year and a half following their acquittal. In a judgment of 17 March 2022, a Chamber of the Court dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection on exhaustion of domestic remedies and held, by five votes to two, that the retention of the merchandise following the judgment of acquittal had constituted an unlawful interference with the applicant’s property rights in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It held, in particular, that the legal basis on which the seizure had been made had ceased to be relevant after that judgment and that no justifiable reasons had been put forward for its protracted retention after the end of the proceedings. On 5 September 2022 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes