CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 juillet 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   556 09.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MOON v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Moon v. France (application no. 39973/03). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights on account of a penalty imposed on the applicant for failing to declare a sum of money at the French-Swiss border, namely the confiscation of the part of the sum in excess of the declaration threshold together with a fine.   The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision and reserved it. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Timothy Moon, is a British national who was born in 1965 and lives in Otford (United Kingdom).   On 9 November 2000, when passing through customs at the French-Swiss border on his way to France, he was found to be in possession of an undeclared sum equivalent to 48,084   euros   (EUR), in breach of an obligation to declare sums over EUR   7,622. The amount by which that threshold was exceeded (EUR   40,422) was seized from Mr Moon, who explained that the money was part of a loan he had taken out with a Swiss company and was intended for the purchase of a house or a sports car.   On 3 October 2001 he was convicted of failing to declare a sum of money and fined 40,000   French   francs (EUR   6,098). The fine was to be taken from the sum seized and the remainder returned to him. The court noted that Mr Moon had not been acting on behalf of a secret or mafia-type organisation, since he had shown that his possession of such a sum was consistent with his level of income and personal assets.   Further to appeals lodged by the customs authorities and Mr Moon, the court upheld his conviction, but ordered the confiscation of the sum in excess of the declaration threshold (EUR   40,422) and raised the fine to one quarter of the total sum that had been in his possession when crossing the border (EUR   12,021).   An appeal on points of law by Mr Moon was dismissed on 21 January 2004.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 December 2003. It was decided to examine its admissibility and merits at the same time.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Rait Maruste (Estonia), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Renate Jaeger (Germany), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Moon complained, in particular, that the penalty imposed on him for failing to declare a sum of money to the customs authorities, namely the confiscation of the part of the sum in excess of the declaration threshold, together with a fine, was disproportionate to the offence in question.   Decision of the Court   The interference by the authorities in Mr Moon’s right to the protection of his property had been provided for by law and had pursued an aim in the general interest, namely to prevent the laundering of money from drug trafficking.   The Court observed, however, that in the light of the evidence before it, Mr Moon had never been prosecuted or convicted, in the United Kingdom or France, for money laundering or any related offences.   The Court took into consideration the significant amount of the penalty imposed on Mr   Moon which reached a total of EUR   52,443 by combining the confiscation of the sum in excess of the declaration threshold (EUR   40,422) with a fine corresponding to one quarter of the total sum in his possession at the border (EUR   12,021).   The Court held that this penalty was disproportionate to the offence committed and that its imposition had not struck a fair balance between the general interest and the applicant’s fundamental rights, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.