MAGDELINIKJ v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 4 other applications

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

Karar Metni

Published on 22 May 2023

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 13208/20
Dushko MAGDELINIKJ against North Macedonia
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 5 May 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern customs proceedings in which the applicant’s single-owner limited liability company had been ordered to pay additional customs duties.

Following a revision performed by the Customs Office, the applicant’s company was ordered, in five different decisions, to pay additional customs duties on imported goods. It paid those duties in 2002. Subsequently, the company, later joined by the applicant, instituted five sets of proceedings against the customs authorities. It contended that the orders for it to pay the additional duties had been unlawful and asked to be reimbursed. In 2007 the company ceased to exist, but the impugned proceedings continued until 2018, when the Customs Office learned about the company having ceased to exist and discontinued the proceedings. The applicant challenged the discontinuation of the proceedings, but the administrative courts at two instances held, in all sets of proceedings, that neither the applicant as an individual, nor the company that no longer existed had legal standing in the proceedings. The domestic courts found that customs duties proceedings did not interfere with any personal rights or interests of the applicant established by law, thus rejecting his claim.

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he was deprived of the possibility to regain his former company’s possessions (meaning the allegedly unjustifiably paid customs duties).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Can the applicant claim to be a “victim” of a violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, taking into account the fact that he was the sole owner of the limited liability company that eventually ceased to exist (see Albert and Others v. Hungary [GC], no. 5294/14, §§ 135 et seq., 7 July 2020, with further references, and Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, § 40, 11 October 2007)?

2. Without prejudice to the answer to the previous question and assuming that the applicant can claim to be a victim, was he afforded a reasonable opportunity of putting his case before the competent authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures interfering with the rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see G.I.E.M. S.R.L. and Others v. Italy [GC], nos. 1828/06 and 2 others, § 302, 28 June 2018)?

APPENDIX

List of cases:

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality

Represented by

13208/20