Communicated on 13 June 2017
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 61233/12
Hasmik KARAPETYAN
against Georgia
lodged on 7 September 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Hasmik Karapetyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1962 and lives in the Lori Region, Armenia. She is represented before the Court by Mr V. Grigoryan, a lawyer practising in Yerevan.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 May 2010 the applicant arrived in Georgia from Turkey together with two friends. During a search at the Sarpi border checkpoint a customs inspection revealed that she had 40,000 US dollars (USD) hidden on her person which she had failed to declare. The customs officers drew up an official record and an infringement report for violating customs rules, and seized the sum of money.
By a decision of 14 June 2010 the Batumi Regional Office of the Customs Service ordered that the money which the applicant had failed to declare should be forfeited.
The applicant appealed against the above decision to administrative bodies, but her appeals were rejected.
She then applied for judicial review. Before the domestic courts, the applicant claimed that, out of the sum seized by the customs officers, USD 13,000 and USD 18,000 had belonged to the friends who had been accompanying her, and the remaining USD 9,000 had belonged to her; she had been keeping the entire amount on her for security reasons. The applicant also contested the lawfulness of the confiscation measure. She submitted that, even if she had committed the offence, it was still unlawful to make her forfeit the entire sum, considering that the law obliged a person to declare an amount to customs if that amount exceeded 30,000 Georgian laris (GEL) (approximately 12,000 euros (EUR)) or the equivalent in another currency.
By a decision of 26 November 2010 the Batumi City Court rejected the applicant’s submissions.
By a decision of 16 November 2011 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the applicant on points of law, and the proceedings were thus finally terminated. According to the case file, the decision of 16 November 2011 was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 17 April 2012.
B. Relevant domestic law
Under Article 242 of the Customs Code, as in force at the material time, importing or exporting goods across the customs border of Georgia by avoiding customs control, or doing so secretly, was punishable by a fine in amount of 100% of the customs value of the goods, but not less than GEL 1,000, or by forfeiture of the goods.
Under Article 3(3.1) of Appendix 6 of Decree no. 1232 of 22 November 2007 of the Georgian Minister of Finance, as in force at the material time, any amount of currency could be freely imported into or exported from Georgia. However, a person carrying cash in the amount of GEL 30,000 (approximately 12,000 Euros), or the equivalent in another currency, was required to declare it.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the decision of the domestic authorities to make her forfeit USD 40,000 for failing to declare the sum was excessive, and thus violated her right to the peaceful enjoyment of property.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the confiscation measure in the present case, which affected the applicant’s property rights, necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties, in accordance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Ismayilov v. Russia, no. 30352/03, §§ 31‑39, 6 November 2008)? Did that measure impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?
2. In view of the differing indications in the domestic proceedings and her application to the Court, which part of the sum discovered on the applicant’s person and confiscated by the customs authority represented, in actual fact, her property?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy