Communicated on 10 March 2017
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 17807/15
Vele ANEV
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
lodged on 2 April 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vele Anev, is a Macedonian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Veles. He is represented before the Court by Mr O. Gašev, a lawyer practising in Veles.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant owned two lorries which he used to transport lumber. This was his main source of income.
On 7 August 2013 the applicant was transporting lumber using one of his lorries. On the Veles – Gradsko road he was stopped by the police, who seeing that he was transporting lumber, summoned the forestry police. The forestry police determined that the data contained in the permission (испратница) for the transport of the lumber which was presented by the applicant did not match the stamp (жиг) on the lumber and the vehicle used for the transport. For these reasons, it was considered that the applicant was not in possession of a valid permission for the transport, and misdemeanour proceedings were lodged against him before Veles Court of First Instance.
On the same day, the applicant’s lorry, along with the lumber that he was transporting (seven cubic meters of oak wood), were temporarily seized by the forestry police.
On 16 January 2014 Veles Court of First Instance found the applicant guilty for “transporting lumber without the proper stamp or permission”, a misdemeanour stipulated in the Woods Act, section 104, subsection 1, paragraph 11. He was fined with 3,000 euros (EUR). By this decision the applicant’s lorry along with the lumber were confiscated in accordance with section 104 subsection 3 of the Act.
The applicant argued that he owned two lorries used for the transport of lumber, and both of them were transporting wood on the same day. Because of this, the drivers had confused the permissions and each of them had taken the wrong one. To this end the applicant supplied two permissions with consecutive serial numbers, but the court understood this as an admission on the facts in the case.
On 31 March 2014 the applicant appealed. He claimed that the fine and the confiscation of his lorry (estimated to be worth EUR 10,000) imposed an excessive burden on him.
On 9 July 2014 Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It held that all the elements of the misdemeanour stipulated in the Forests Act were fulfilled, and therefore it upheld the lower courts’ decision in full.
B. Relevant domestic law
1. The Woods Act (Закон за Шумите, Official Gazette Nos. 64/09, 24/11, 53/11, 25/13, 79/13, 147/13, 43/14)
Section 104, subsection 1 paragraph 11 of the Woods Act prescribes that a fine in the amount ranging from EUR 3,500 to EUR 4,000 will be imposed on anyone who transports cut lumber without a proper tag or permission.
Section 104, subsection 3 of the Act prescribes that in cases of offences defined in section 104 subsection 1, notwithstanding the fine, the domestic courts shall give a confiscation order regarding the objects which have been used in the commission of the administrative offence as well as the objects themselves (the lumber).
2. Misdemeanours Act (Закон за Прекршоците, Official Gazette Nos. 62/06, 51/11)
Section 41 of the Misdemeanours Act specifies that in case of confiscation of goods in misdemeanour proceedings, the courts shall refer to sections 97 – 100 - A of the Criminal code.
3. Criminal Code (Кривичен Законик, Official Gazette Nos. 37/96, 80/99, 04/02, 43/03, 19/04, 81/05, 60/06, 73/06, 7/08, 139/08, 114/09, 51/11, 185/11, 142/12, 166/12, 55/13, 82/13, 14/14, 27/14, 28/14)
Section 100-A of the Criminal Code specifies that the objects which were intended to be used or were used to commit an offence shall be confiscated from the offender, regardless of whether he or a third person is their owner, if the interests of general security, the health of other persons or the reasons of morale so require.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the confiscation of his lorry imposed an excessive burden on him.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the confiscation of the applicant’s lorry constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was the confiscation imposed in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in the public interest? Was it necessary and proportionate, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy