Communicated on 15 October 2020
Published on 2 November 2020
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 64725/19
Sebastjan FERHATOVIĆ
against Slovenia
lodged on 6 December 2019
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the seizure of copper products during a house search conducted in the course of a preliminary police investigation for aggravated theft.
On 8 February 2009 the police seized eight bags of copper products from the applicant. On 11 May 2009 it returned five of them to the applicant who was subsequently charged with concealment. The criminal proceedings against the applicant were later discontinued by the Ljubljana District Court and the applicant requested the return of the three remaining bags. The court informed the applicant that the police had in the meantime returned them to the victim.
Subsequently, the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the State, claiming compensation for the pecuniary loss (13,750 euros) sustained due to the unlawful return of his seized copper products to a third party. On 12 July 2015 the Ljubljana Local Court dismissed his claim, holding that the applicant had not provided proof of his ownership of the seized products and that, in any event, the police had acted with the required diligence. On appeal, the Ljubljana Higher Court reiterated that the applicant had not incurred any loss because he had failed to prove that he was the owner of the seized objects. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal on points of law. On 15 July 2019 the Constitutional Court decided not to accept the constitutional complaint for consideration.
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the police gave his property to a third party (the alleged victim) in violation of the Criminal Procedure Act and thus unlawfully interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Did the seizure of the three bags containing copper products and their subsequent transfer to a third party satisfy the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and in particular the requirement that any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions should be lawful (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 58, ECHR 1999‑II)? Was that interference proportionate and justified for the purposes of that provision, taking into consideration the burden of proof imposed on the applicant in the subsequent civil proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia, no. 36862/05, §§ 107-113, 12 May 2015; Silickienė v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, § 70, 10 April 2012; and Rocco ARCURI and three others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52024/99, ECHR 5 July 2001)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy