THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PRENČA v. SERBIA
(Application no. 48725/12)
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 1 P1 • Control of the use of property • Fine and confiscation of undeclared cash that the applicant attempted to carry across the State border in excess of the statutory export limit applicable to Serbian residents • Imprecise legal framework, coupled with insufficient review carried out by domestic courts • Lack of requisite procedural guarantees • Proportionality assessment not adequately performed • Fair balance between competing interests not ensured
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
7 October 2025
 
FINAL
 
07/01/2026
 
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Prenča v. Serbia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
 Peeter Roosma,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Diana Kovatcheva,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
 Mateja Đurović,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 48725/12) against the Republic of Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26 July 2012 by a Serbian national, Mr Rifat Prenča (“the applicant”);
the decision to give notice to the Serbian Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention and Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 24 June and 16 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns the confiscation of an amount of cash (39,500 euros (EUR)) that the applicant attempted to carry across the State border in breach of the relevant regulations. The applicant complains that it had constituted an unlawful and disproportionate measure that had been in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Novi Pazar (Serbia). He was represented by Ms Refija Garibović, a lawyer practising in the same town. 3. The Government were represented by their Agents, Ms V. Rodić and subsequently Ms N. Plavšić. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Misdemeanour proceedings
5. On 18 May 2004 the applicant, the owner of a small private transport business, was travelling by lorry along his usual route between the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (as existed at the time in question) and Hungary when he was approached by customs officers of the respondent State at the Kelebija border crossing, and was asked whether he had anything to declare. According to the applicant, he was approached by the customs officers while his son-in-law, who was travelling with him, was not present. According to the seizure report (zapisnik o privremeno oduzetim sredstvima plaćanja), which was signed by the applicant, he stated that he was carrying between EUR 500 and EUR 600, while a subsequent personal search of the applicant undertaken by a customs officer revealed the sum of EUR 49,500, which was well hidden under the applicant’s clothes. The authorities permitted the applicant to keep the amount of money that could legally be carried across the border undeclared – at the time EUR 2,000 - and temporarily seized the remaining amount of EUR 47,500, which he was carrying without any certificate of its origin. The applicant was asked if he had anything to add, but he did not. 6. On the same date, the Customs Administration initiated misdemeanor proceedings (prekršajni postupak) against the applicant before the Misdemeanours Commission of the Foreign Currency Inspectorate of the Ministry of Finance (Devizni inspektorat – Komisija za prekršaje Odeljenja u Nišu, Ministarstvo finansija; hereafter “the Commission”) for attempting to carry cash exceeding the statutory threshold out of the country, which was defined as a foreign currency-related misdemeanour (devizni prekršaj) under the legislation regulating foreign currency transactions (see paragraph 33 below). 7. The misdemeanour proceedings were commenced on 29 June 2004. According to the record of the hearing held on 30 July 2004 before the Commission, the applicant had never been convicted of any crime, and neither had any criminal or other misdemeanour-related proceedings ever been pending against him. Being informed of his right to legal assistance, the applicant decided to conduct his own defence, and pleaded guilty. He stated that he had been involved in the professional transport of goods since 2000 and that he regularly crossed the State border for that purpose. On the day of the incident in question, he had been travelling to Budapest, with a professional co-driver. He acknowledged that when questioned by customs officials, he had stated that he was carrying only EUR 500-600; however, a further EUR 47,500 had been found hidden in a folded piece of paper tucked into the waistband of the jogging trousers that he had been wearing. His motive for hiding it in that “safe place” had been his fear that it might otherwise be stolen by thieves during his journey. He had had no intention of evading customs regulations or smuggling money out of the country; rather, he had not declared the cash primarily because he had not known how much money could be carried across the border and had been afraid that the money would have been confiscated by the customs authorities. 8. As regards the origin of the money, the applicant explained that he had mostly earned it with his wife while working abroad in 1992 and that he had also inherited a small amount of money from his father. He submitted that the money had been held in his bank account until May “2003”, [likely meaning 2004], when he had withdrawn EUR 50,000, for which he intended to provide a certificate as evidence of the money’s lawful origin (see paragraph 9 below). He had withdrawn the money because several banks had closed down in 2002 and 2003 and it had not been safe anymore to keep the money in a bank. He carried it regularly with him while travelling abroad for security reasons, as he was anxious about frequent thefts in his town Novi Pazar. Lastly, he argued that the confiscation of the money would seriously affect his material existence, it being his life savings. 9. The applicant also submitted a bank statement, allegedly issued by a branch of the Commercial Bank in Novi Pazar (“the bank”), indicating that he had withdrawn EUR 50,000 on 12 May 2004. 10. In his testimony, the applicant’s son-in-law, N.K., confirmed that he had accompanied the applicant but had not been present during the check. He had learned from the applicant of the seizure of the cash. He stated that he could not recall, but believed that he (that is, N.K.) had been carrying with him around EUR 200. 11. On 28 November 2006 the Commission found the applicant guilty as charged (see paragraph 6 above), fined him and imposed a protective measure of confiscation of the entire amount of cash in excess of the statutory threshold. 12. On appeals, on 26 September 2007 the Appellate Misdemeanour Chamber of the Ministry of Finance (Veće za drugostepeni prekršajni postupak; hereafter “the Chamber”) declared null and void the decision of the Commission and remitted it for fresh consideration. It found that the Commission had failed to adequately establish the facts, that its reasoning had been unclear and had contradicted the evidence in the case-file. In particular, it accepted the argument made by the applicant in his appeal (assisted by a lawyer of his choice) that the Commission, while imposing confiscation, had failed to provide any reasoning by only noting, but not taking into account as evidence the bank’s statement of 12 May 2004 on the withdrawal of the cash by the applicant. While the bank’s statement could not have excluded the applicant’s liability for the misdemeanours with which he had been charged, it should have been – contrary to the Commission’s finding – a relevant factor in determining the protective measure. It instructed the Commission to carefully assess each item of evidence, and in particular, to establish whether the applicant had been accompanied and, if so (given that a companion would also have been entitled to carry cash across the border), to explain, rather than merely note it, whether this fact had any relevance. 13. Following the remittal of the case, on 20 November 2007 the bank allegedly informed the Commission that no cash had been withdrawn by the applicant on 12 May 2004 (see paragraph 9 above). The letter of the bank sent to that extent was not provided to the Court; nor, apparently, was it sent to the applicant. 14. On 14 January 2008 the Commission gave a fresh first-instance decision as follows:
(i) noting that the applicant had already been allowed to keep EUR 2,000 (see paragraph 5 above), it discontinued the proceedings in respect of a further EUR 3,000 as a result of changes in the amount that could be carried across the border, to EUR 5,000 (see paragraph 30 below). The Commission ordered that this sum was to be paid into the applicant’s account once the decision became final and enforceable, requesting him to specify the bank account, and to issue a power of attorney authorising his lawyer to withdraw the money;
(ii) it found the applicant guilty of having attempted to carry out of the country the sum of EUR 44,500 in breach of the relevant law and thereby of having committed the misdemeanor (as defined, at the time, in Article 62 § 1 (12) of the 2006 Foreign Currency Transactions Act in conjunction with the 2006 Bank Decision) (see paragraphs 28, 30 and 33 below);
(iii) it fined him 18,000 dinars (“RSD”; see paragraph 33 below), to be paid within fifteen days, failing which the fine would be replaced by a term of imprisonment by means of a decision (rešenje). The Commission took into account all the circumstances that could influence the amount of the fine  –  such as the gravity and consequences of the offence, the circumstances under which the offence had been committed, the amount at issue, and the perpetrator’s conduct and degree of guilt;
(iv) it ordered the applicant to pay RSD 600 in respect of the costs of the proceedings within the same time-limit as the imposed fine;
(v) lastly, it imposed confiscation of the object of the offence (zaštitna mera oduzimanja predmeta prekršaja), in accordance with Article 64 § 1 of the 2006 Foreign Currency Transactions Act, that is, the entire amount that he had been carrying in excess of EUR 5,000. 15. In confiscating the cash, the Commission essentially referred to the fact that that measure was mandatory under Article 64 § 1 of the 2006 Foreign Currency Transactions Act (see paragraph 34 below). It had found no grounds which would warrant only partial confiscation on the basis of Article 64 § 2 of the same Act (see paragraph 35 below), given that the applicant had deliberately and unlawfully tried to carry cash out of the country, hidden and undeclared, and also that the bank statement submitted by him (see paragraph 9 above) could not be considered to constitute reliable evidence of the lawful origin of the money in issue, having regard to the latter letter from the bank (paragraph 13 above). 16. The applicant appealed, arguing that the facts had been incorrectly established, that there had been breaches of substantive and procedural rules and that the sanctions imposed had been excessive. He complained, inter alia, that the Commission had confiscated the entire amount of undeclared cash, without considering whether a further EUR 5,000 should have been returned to him on account of his travelling companion’s entitlement to carry such amount of cash across the State border. Furthermore, he complained that the Commission had not “accepted” the cash withdrawal statement which he had received from the bank and which he had provided as evidence, but had “accepted “the bank’s subsequent letter”, to which he had had no access to nor the opportunity to comment on. Lastly, he mentioned that the customs authorities had not allowed him to keep the sum of EUR 2,000 on 18 May 2004 (see paragraph 5 above) and had still not returned it to him. 17. On 25 August 2008, the Chamber upheld the impugned decision in the part concerning the elements of the offence and the applicant’s liability. The Chamber further found that, having been a frequent traveller owing to his business, the applicant must have been aware of the relevant regulations and that he was carrying an amount of cash exceeding the statutory limit. In addition, the location of the hidden cash had indicated a deliberate attempt to carry the cash across the border without declaring it and therefore to circumvent the customs inspection. It reversed the first-instance decision, and:
(i) discontinued the proceedings in respect of EUR 8,000 following further increase of the statutory threshold of cash allowed to be carried by a resident across the border to EUR 10,000 (see paragraph 30 below);
(ii) confiscated the sum of EUR 39,500, referring to the mandatory nature of the protective measure;
(iii) decreased the fine to RSD 10,000 (approximately EUR 130 at the relevant time), considering that amount to be sufficient in terms of having a deterrent effect and preventing the recurrence of the offence; and
(iv) ordered the applicant to pay RSD 1,000 in respect of costs. 18. The Chamber rejected the applicant’s arguments that the origin of the money had been lawful, referring to the bank’s letter of 2007 (see paragraph 13 above), and concluded that none of the conditions for the application of Article 64 § 2 of the Foreign Currency Transactions Act had been fulfilled. It also refused the applicant’s request that the sum falling within the statutory limit be returned to his son-in-law, given that (i) the latter had not been present in the lorry during the customs check, (ii) no sum of money had been confiscated from him, even though the evidence showed that he had been present during the journey, and (iii) the latter had stated, when questioned by the Commission, that he had only been carrying EUR 200 (see paragraph 10 above). The decision contained no further order in respect of the applicant. 19. On 4 March 2009 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Srbije) dismissed on the merits a further appeal on points of law (zahtev za vanredno preispitivanje pravosnažnog rešenja, a remedy available at the relevant time) lodged by the applicant, finding that the competent authorities had applied the law correctly. Briefly, it held that the applicant had committed the offence in question, and that while mitigating circumstances justified a lesser fine, no such circumstances warranted only partial confiscation. 20. On 19 August 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint, claiming a breach of his right to peaceful enjoyment of property and of his right to a fair trial. Referring to Gabrić v. Croatia (no. 9702/04, 5 February 2009) and his earlier arguments, he complained that the confiscation of the entire amount exceeding the statutory threshold was unnecessary and disproportionate. As a resident, he had been allowed to take more than EUR 10,000 out the country, if the origin of that money could be verified. He complained of various procedural irregularities during the misdemeanour proceedings, including the disregard shown by the authorities to the evidence submitted by him, and his lack of access to and opportunity to comment on the bank’s letter of 2007 (see paragraph 13 above). Customs officers had put him under pressure to sign the on-site seizure report, and, as he had been afraid of being ill-treated, he had signed it. The amount of EUR 2,000 which had been reported as not having been seized (see paragraph 5 above) had not been returned to him. He also stated that a further EUR 10,000 should not have been confiscated, given that he had been accompanied by his son-in-law and that between them they had been entitled to carry a total of EUR 20,000. Lastly, the confiscation of his life savings had led to the termination of his private transport business and had badly affected his family, including his wife and their two children. 21. On 30 January 2012 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Srbije) dismissed the applicant’s complaint (odbacio rešenjem ustavnu žalbu kao očigledno neosnovanu), stating that he had failed to invoke any constitutionally-related grounds under Articles 32 and 58 of the Constitution, and, therefore, the criteria for the opening of the proceedings had not been met. The court found that the applicant had failed to provide any evidence that he had been forced to sign the seizure report, and that it was irrelevant whether EUR 47,500 or EUR 50,000 had been seized, as in any event the amount allowed to be carried across the border had been returned to him, while the remaining amount had been confiscated. It dismissed the applicant’s argument about the lack of adversarial proceedings in respect of the bank’s letter of 20 November 2007 and considered that the evidence had been assessed in a constitutionally acceptable manner, the fine and the confiscation had been imposed following a fair trial conducted in accordance with the law. Relevant domestic developments after notice of the application was given to the Government
22. On 15 September 2017 the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant, in a letter, that it could not return the amount of EUR 8,000 to him as he had failed to comply with the instructions rendered by the Chamber decision of 25 August 2008 (see paragraph 17 above) for two reasons: (i) he had not yet paid the fine and the costs of the proceedings, and (ii) he had failed to provide the Ministry with details of his foreign-currency account and/or to submit the authority form authorising his lawyer to receive the amount of EUR 8,000 on his behalf. 23. On 26 September 2017 the applicant paid the above-mentioned debts and informed the Court of the Ministry’s letter and his payments. 24. On 1 March 2018 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that she had contacted the applicant the previous day and that he had informed her that the Ministry had reimbursed him EUR 8,000 on 12 October 2017. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICEThe Constitution of the Republic of Serbia

25. Article 58 guarantees peaceful enjoyment of possessions and other property rights lawfully acquired. The “right of property” may be revoked or restricted only in the public interest (as established by law) and in return for compensation, which cannot amount to less than the market value of the property. The law may restrict the manner in which property is used. The legal framework governing cross-border transfers of cash and other means of payment
26. The provisions appliable at the time of the offence were set out in the following legal instruments, which have been amended or repealed over the years:
(i) the 2002 Foreign Currency Transactions Act (Zakon o deviznom poslovanju, Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“OG FRY”), nos. 23/02 and 34/02, before the amendments introduced in 2005);
(ii) the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (Zakon o sprečavanju pranja novca, OG FRY, no. 53/2001; hereinafter “the 2001 Money Laundering Act”); and
(iii) the Decision of the National Bank of Yugoslavia of 2002 on the conditions for the personal and physical transfer of means of payment (cash, cheques and securities) to and from abroad (Odluka o uslovima i načinu ličnih i fizičkih prenosa sredstava plaćanja u inostranstvo i iz inostranstva, OG FRY, nos. 25/2002 and 33/2002 – “the 2002 Bank Decision”). 27. The authorities relied on the following legal instruments, which came into force while the misdemeanour proceedings against the applicant were ongoing, and which were considered more lenient for the applicant:
(i) the 2006 Foreign Currency Transactions Act (Zakon o deviznom poslovanju, OG RS, no. 62/06);
(ii) the Law on the prevention of money laundering of 2005 (Zakon o sprečavanju pranja novca, OG RS, nos. 107/05 and 117/05, hereinafter “the 2005 Money Laundering Act”); and
(iii) the corresponding decisions of the National Bank of Serbia regarding the conditions for effecting personal and physical transfer of means of payment (cash, cheques and securities) across the border, adopted in 2006, as amended in 2008 (Odluka o uslovima za lične i fizičke prenose sredstava plaćanja u inostranstvo i iz inostranstva, OG RS, nos. 67/2006 and 52/2008 – “the 2006 Bank Decision”). The requirements for the cross-border transportation of cash, as set out by the Foreign Currency Transactions Act and its subsidiary regulations
28. In implementing the consecutive Foreign Currency Transactions Acts, the National Banks of Yugoslavia and Serbia adopted the above-mentioned 2002 and 2006 Decisions (which prescribed the conditions under which residents or non-residents, when physically crossing the State border, could bring into or take out of the country cash and other payment methods, in any currency, that they had acquired in a manner in compliance with the law). 29. Serbian residents may take cash or cheques abroad if the total sum does not exceed a set amount, except if they are emigrating (points 10 and 11 of the 2006 Bank Decision). 30. The equivalent threshold has been set successively at:
(i) EUR 2,000, in accordance with the 2002 Bank Decision;
(ii) EUR 5,000, in accordance with the 2006 Bank Decision; and
(iii) EUR 10,000, where it also stands nowadays. 31. Non-residents can export cash in domestic or foreign currency exceeding EUR 10,000 (or its equivalent), in the following instances:
(a)  on the basis of a declaration on bringing cash into Serbia that has been stamped by a customs officer;
(b)  upon submission of a bank slip recording the withdrawal of cash from a foreign-currency account while in Serbia;
(c)  upon submission of a receipt recording exchanges into euros from national currency previously acquired while using their credit card. Such declarations shall be annulled by the customs while exiting the country for the first time (pri prvom izlasku iz zemlje; point 12 § 2 of the 2006 Bank Decision, as amended in 2008). 32. Customs officers may temporarily seize from residents and non‑residents currency in cash and cheques carried into or out of the country exceeding the threshold and which has been unlawfully acquired (стечене су супротно прописима); in such case, those customs officers shall issue declarations of seizure (point 8 of the 2002 Bank Decision and point 14 of the 2006 Bank Decision). 33. The failure of a natural person resident in Serbia to comply with the regulations issued by the National Bank (see paragraphs 28 and 30 above) amounts to a misdemeanour subject to a fine ranging from (i) RSD 200 to RSD 21,000, under the 2002 Foreign Currency Transactions Act (Article 51 § 1(5) and Article 54 § 1(3)), or (ii) RSD 5,000 to RSD 150,000 (approximately EUR 60 and 1,850 in 2006), pursuant to the 2006 Foreign Currency Transactions Act (Article 62 § 1(12) at the material time and Article 63 subsequently). 34. Pursuant to Article 64 § 1 of the 2006 Foreign Currency Transactions Act, in addition to a fine, the relevant authorities shall impose the protective measure of confiscation of any assets that were intended or used for the commission of a misdemeanour under Articles 59-63. They may be confiscated irrespective of the offender’s lack of ownership or the right of the offender to use them. 35. Article 64 § 2 provides that, by a way of an exception to paragraph 1 (izuzetno), if the offender’s motive or other circumstances imply that it is not justified to confiscate the entire amount, the assets which are the object of the misdemeanour, are to be confiscated only in part. 36. Foreign currency that constitutes the object of the criminal offence or misdemeanour is to be sold to the National Bank and its equivalent in national currency is to be transferred into the State budget (Article 66). Relevant provisions of the Money Laundering Acts
37. A declaration system under the Money Laundering Acts entered into force and effect in 2009. 38. However, under both the 2001 Money Laundering Act (Article 13) and 2005 Money Laundering Act (Article 9), the customs authorities were required to inform, within three days, the authority responsible for the prevention of money laundering (the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering (APML), established as a unit of the Ministry of Finance) of any declared or undeclared transfer across the State border of means of payment exceeding the statutory threshold; as well as of any pending misdemeanour proceedings concerning money laundering (Article 19 of the 2001 Act and Article 23 of the 2005 Act). Misdemeanours Acts
39. The relevant provisions concerning misdemeanour proceedings and related sanctions were set out in the Misdemeanours Act of 1989 (Zakon o prekršajima – OG SRS, nos. 44/89 and OG RS 21/90, 11/92, 6/93, 20/93, 53/93, 67/93, 28/94, 16/97, 37/97, 36/98, 44/98, 65/01 and 55/04) and Misdemeanours Act of 2005 (Zakon o prekršajima, first published in OG FRY, nos. 101/2005, and then OG RS, nos. 116/2008 and 111/2009, applicable since 1 January 2010). 40. Misdemeanours should be defined, inter alia, by means of issuing laws and decrees. As regards lawfulness, no one may be convicted for a misdemeanour if it (and the type and severity of any ensuing sanctions) has not been defined by a law or a regulation based on law, before it was committed. 41. Sanctions for misdemeanours are: penalties, reprimands, protective measures and educational measures. The aim of sanctions is that citizens respect the legal system and that they do not commit a misdemeanour in the future. In determining the type and severity of a penalty, a court shall take into account all circumstances that may render that penalty (in terms of its type and severity) heavier or lighter, in particular the gravity and consequences of the offence, the circumstances under which the offence was committed, the degree of guilt and the personal status of the perpetrators, and their conduct after the commission of the offence. When imposing a fine on the perpetrator, the court shall also take into account his financial situation. Lastly, the purpose of protective measures (including confiscation) is to remove the conditions that enable or facilitate the commission of a new misdemeanour. 42. As regards the lodging of an application for the reopening of misdemeanour proceedings, the latest relevant rules are set out in the Misdemeanour Act of 2013 (Zakon o prekršajima – OG RS, nos. 65/13, 13/16, 98/16, 91/19 and 112/22 (IUz-25/2018 of the Constitutional Court)). Under Articles 280 and 281 thereof, misdemeanour proceedings may be reopened if an application for reopening was lodged[1] on the basis of a final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights whereby a violation of the rights and freedoms under the Conventions was found, if that finding might have a favourable impact for the applicant. 43. Although a general statute of limitations for prosecuting certain misdemeanours – including foreign-currency related misdemeanours – may be prolonged by a specific law, the maximum limitation period cannot exceed five years. Prosecution becomes statute-barred, in any event, after the limitation period has elapsed twice (Article 84). Relevant international and european materialCouncil of Europe

44. The relevant part of the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (which was signed in Warsaw on 16 May 2005 and which entered into force in respect of Serbia on 1 February 2009) – as well as the relevant part of the Explanatory report to that Convention – are cited in the case of Boljević v. Croatia (no. 43492/11, §§ 18-19, 31 January 2017, and Aksüngür and Others v. Serbia, nos. 69080/13 and 4 others, §§ 66-67, 24 June 2025). European Union law and practice
45. Serbia is not a member State of the European Union. It was granted candidate country status in March 2012 and started accession negotiations in January 2014. The essence of this process implies, inter alia, the need to identify existing differences between two legal systems in each of the negotiating chapters, and to work on the full alignment of the State’s national legislation with the EU acquis and its implementation on the national level, pending full membership. 46. The relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (hereafter “the 2005 Cash Control Regulation”) are cited in the case of Boljević v. Croatia, cited above, §§ 20 and 21, 31 January 2017). 47. The relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) No. 2018/1672 (which entered into force on 3 June 2021, and which superseded the Regulation mentioned in the preceding paragraph) – as well as the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning requests for a preliminary ruling lodged by national courts in respect of the interpretation and application of the 2005 Cash Control Regulation – are reproduced in the case of Imeri v. Croatia (no. 77668/14, §§ 42, 44-47, 24 June 2021). 48. In sum, given the fact that the free movement of capital and payments between EU member States, and between member States and third countries (being among the “four fundamental freedoms” enjoyed within the EU single market guaranteed by membership of the EU), only limited restrictions may be allowed. Therefore, in principle, EU citizens and other nationals are entitled to carry any amount of cash when crossing the EU’s outer borders, subject to the obligation to declare, in writing or orally, any cash or means of payment deemed equivalent to cash in a total amount of EUR 10,000 or more (see, for further details, Aksüngür and Others, cited above, § 71). THE LAW
THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AS REGARDS THE ALLEGED ABUSE OF THE RIGHT OF PETITIONThe parties’ submissions

49. In the additional observations, the Government invited the Court to reject the application, arguing that the applicant had abused his right of petition since his lawyer had misled the Court by submitting untrue and unverified facts that she had later tried to hide or present differently in the application form and in the observations. The lawyer had submitted that the Ministry of Finance was responsible for failing to fulfil its obligation to pay back to the applicant EUR 8,000, in accordance with the second-instance decision of August 2008 (see paragraph 17 above), but she had not informed the Court that it was so since the applicant had not paid the fines and the costs of the misdemeanour proceedings nine years after the relevant second‑instance decision had become enforceable or provided the Ministry with the requested information (see paragraphs 22-24 above). 50. They further called into question the applicant’s account of facts concerning the following issues: (i) where exactly the money had been hidden in his clothes, (ii) the inconsistency between the testimony of the applicant’s travelling companion about the money he had been carrying (namely, EUR 200; see paragraph 10 above) and the applicant’s argument that an additional EUR 10,000 should be returned to him in view of the fact that he had been travelling with a companion (see paragraph 20 above), (iii) whether the 2004 bank’s statement regarding the applicant’s withdrawal of cash (see paragraph 9 above) had been genuine, (iv) the applicant’s statement that, although a frequent traveller engaged in transport business (see paragraph 7 above), he had not been aware of the regulations, or (v) that he had not been reimbursed EUR 2,000 as stated in the seizure report of May 2004 (see paragraphs 5, 16 and 20 above). 51. The applicant’s lawyer explained that despite asking the applicant to inform her once he had received the amount of EUR 8,000 from the Ministry, she had only learned of it almost five months later, following the request that she had sent to him in February 2017. She had provided this information to the Court on the following day (see paragraph 24 above).

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation