FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SAPITASH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 864/16 and 2 others –see appended list)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG12 December 2024 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.In the case of Sapitash and Others v. Ukraine,The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Diana Sârcu, President, Kateřina Šimáčková, Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,Having deliberated in private on 21 November 2024,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:PROCEDURE1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.THE FACTS3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.4. The present cases concern the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1to the Convention. They argued that the imposition of fines and confiscation of the entire amount of their lawfully acquired money exceeding the permitted limit, due to their failure to declare it to customs authorities, had constituted a disproportionate measure.THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of Protocol No. 16. The applicants complained principally of the disproportionate sanctions in customs cases – confiscation of the undeclared cash and imposition of a fine. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.7. The applicable principles concerning confiscation of property were summarised in Gabrić v. Croatia (no. 9702/04, §§ 31-33, 5 February 2009).8. In the leading case of Yaremiychuk and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 2720/13 and 6 others, 9 December 2021), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. In particular, the Court concludes that the interference with the applicants’ property rights imposed a disproportionate burden on them in view of the application of confiscation of all excess cash as the sanction, in addition to a fine.10. The Court reiterates in this respect that finding of a violation does not imply that the applicants did not have to bear any responsibility for the breach of domestic law they had committed by failing to declare the cash (see Sadocha v. Ukraine, no. 77508/11, § 43, 11 July 2019).REMAINING COMPLAINTS12. On the basis of the same facts, in applications nos. 864/16 and 19254/16, the applicants also complained that the customs offences court proceedings were unfair. They relied on Articles 6 or 13 of the Convention.13. Having regard to the material in its possession, the Court considers that these complaints did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation