Published on 20 April 2026
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 45574/20
Andriy Ivanovych BURKO
against Ukraine
lodged on 23 September 2020
communicated on 2 April 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns an alleged breach by the applicant of customs regulations in view of his failure to comply with the time-limit for the temporary importation of a vehicle and the ensuing imposition of a fine as a sanction.
On 7 March 2020 the applicant, having entered Ukraine from Poland, temporarily imported a vehicle under the temporary admission customs procedure. He was required to re-export the vehicle by 23 April 2020.
On 13 March 2020 the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, by Resolution no. 288-p, ordered the temporary closure of a number of border crossing points, including the majority of crossing points on the Ukrainian-Polish frontier.
On 14 March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, by Resolution no. 287-p, ordered the temporary closure, from 17 March to 3 April 2020, of all border crossing points for international passenger traffic, subject to limited exceptions, in particular for persons travelling in order to ensure national interests, to fulfil international obligations, and for representatives of diplomatic and humanitarian missions. This regime was subsequently extended until 22 May 2020.
On 24 March 2020 the applicant sent an e-mail to the customs authorities in which he informed them that he was unable to remove the vehicle from Ukraine due to those restrictions.
On 27 May 2020, when attempting to return to Poland, a report on an administrative offence was drawn up in respect of the applicant for exceeding the prescribed time-limit for the temporary importation of the vehicle, and the car was temporarily seized. The applicant appealed, arguing that, due to COVID-19 restrictions, border crossing points had been closed and that he did not fall within the limited categories permitted to leave Ukraine. He further relied on force majeure and denied any intention to breach the applicable customs rules.
On 7 July 2020, the Halytskyi District Court of Lviv found the applicant guilty of committing an administrative offence under Article 481 § 6 of the Customs Code of Ukraine, which provides for a fine of ten thousand non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens or confiscation of the vehicle for exceeding the time-limit for temporary importation by more than thirty days. The court imposed a fine of UAH 170,000 (approximately EUR 5,200 at the material time) and ordered the applicant to pay storage costs for the vehicle. It further ordered that the vehicle be returned to the applicant upon payment of the fine. It noted that, despite the COVID-19 restrictions, a certain border crossing point remained operational and that the applicant could have complied with the applicable customs requirements. On 26 August 2020, the Lviv Court of Appeal upheld that judgment in a final decision.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the proceedings were unfair, in particular because the domestic courts failed to give due consideration to his arguments based on COVID-19 movement restrictions and force majeure. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, he further complains that the sanction imposed on him was unlawful and disproportionate and imposed an excessive individual burden.
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 argument put forward by the applicant?
2. Did the sanction imposed on the applicant by the domestic courts for the alleged breach of customs regulations constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference lawful and compatible with the proportionality requirement under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Krayeva v. Ukraine, no. 72858/13, 13 January 2022)?