CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 mars 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 73 March 2005 Frizen v. Russia - 58254/00 Judgment 24.3.2005 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Forfeiture of car following the owner’s husband’s conviction of fraud and a related confiscation order: violation   Facts :In 1996 a company founded by the applicant’s husband granted her an interest-free loan to buy a car. The total amount was transferred directly to the bank account of the car dealer. In 1998, the applicant’s husband was convicted of large-scale fraud. The court sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment and issued confiscation orders in respect of his property. The applicant’s car and certain household items in her flat were seized. Before the European Court the applicant complained that her car had been confiscated for offences for which she had not been convicted and without any legal basis. Law : The existence of public-interest considerations for the forfeiture of the applicant’s vehicle, however relevant or appropriate they might have appeared, did not dispense the domestic authorities from the obligation to cite a legal basis for such decision. It observed that the domestic courts did not refer to any legal provision authorising the forfeiture, either in the criminal proceedings against the applicant’s husband or in the civil proceedings which she initiated. Furthermore, the Russian Government had not invoked, explicitly or by reference, any domestic legal provision on which the decision to confiscate the applicant’s car had been based. The Court’s power to review compliance with domestic law was limited, as it was in the first place for the national authorities to interpret and apply that law. Having regard to the Russian authorities’ consistent failure to indicate a legal provision that could be construed as the basis for the forfeiture of the applicant’s property, the interference with the applicant’s property rights could not be considered “lawful”. Conclusion :violation (unanimously).   © 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