Published on 5 June 2023
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 12313/16
Galyna Yuriyivna SURAY
against Ukraine
lodged on 17 February 2016
communicated on 15 May 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns an alleged breach of the customs rules by the applicant when transporting a car across the Ukrainian border and the sanction imposed on her in this respect.
In June 2014 a private Lithuanian company issued the applicant, a Russian citizen, a power of attorney to use its car registered in Lithuania. In July 2014 the applicant entered Ukraine with the car and in July 2015 intended to leave the territory of Ukraine. She provided the customs service with the 2012 registration certificate for the vehicle and the power of attorney from the Lithuanian company. Having checked the web page of the Lithuanian State Register of Vehicles, the customs service found out that the car’s registration had been annulled (apparently, in August 2014, following legislative amendments which provided that a car’s registration was to be annulled in case of a failure to pass a technical inspection or in the absence of insurance). An administrative offence report in respect of the applicant was drawn up suggesting that she had concealed the car from the customs control by means of submitting documents containing false data (Article 483 of the Customs Code). Subsequently, the domestic courts upheld the decision of the customs authorities and ordered the confiscation of the car and imposed a fine on the applicant equal to 100% value of the car (UAH 215,132.78; about EUR 8,300 at the time), as provided for by the relevant Article. The applicant’s argument that she did not commit the offence since she had simply not been aware of the annulment of the car’s registration, and that, in any event, the annulment of the registration in Lithuania should not have prevented her from leaving the territory of Ukraine with the car was dismissed by the courts. They referred to the applicant’s obligations as the user of the car to ensure that the documents she possessed when crossing the border were valid and up-to-date and noted that the valid registration of the vehicle in its “residence” State was a sine qua non condition the admission of that vehicle to the territory of Ukraine.
The applicant complains that the sanction imposed on her – the confiscation of the car and the fine – was an unlawful and disproportionate measure which imposed an excessive burden on her. She relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the car in issue constitute the applicant’s possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
2. Did the sanction imposed on the applicant for the alleged breach of customs rules 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 all relevant documents, including the power of attorney concerning the car which the applicant presented to the customs authorities when crossing the border.