Published on 5 June 2023
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 6356/16
Vitaliy Vasylyovych SIRYK
against Ukraine
lodged on 15 January 2016
communicated on 15 May 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns a punishment imposed on the applicant for having provided false documents to the customs authorities when importing a car to Ukraine: confiscation of the car and a fine equal to the car’s value.
At the customs control, the applicant submitted documents suggesting that he was bringing the car at the request of his employer-company, which the latter had allegedly bought in Germany for 2,800 euros (EUR). The search of the vehicle revealed another set of documents for the same car in the applicant’s bag according to which the car in issue had been bought by the applicant from a Polish dealer for 16,000 Polish zloty (about EUR 3,600). An administrative offence report was drafted in respect of the applicant on account of the alleged concealment of the car from the customs control (Article 483 of the Customs Code). The first-instance court found for the applicant and closed the proceedings, noting that there was no evidence that the documents provided by the applicant to the customs had been forged or otherwise invalid. On 8 July 2015 Court of Appeal overruled that judgment and upheld the customs office’ decision, relying on information obtained from the applicant’s employer and the Polish company.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that the sanction imposed on him, namely the confiscation of his vehicle in addition to the fine, was a disproportionate measure which imposed an excessive burden on him.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the sanction imposed on the applicant for the alleged breach of customs rules, namely the confiscation of his car combined with a fine, constitute an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant’s 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, mutatis mutandis, Krayeva v. Ukraine, no. 72858/13, 13 January 2022)?
The Government are requested to provide the relevant documents, including the applicant’s written explanations given to the customs authorities, if any, and his written objections to the appeal of the customs office against the judgment of the first-instance court.