FIFTH SECTIONCASE OF SHPITALNIK AND ARTYUKH v. UKRAINE(Applications nos. 83711/17 and 23257/18)      JUDGMENT STRASBOURG30 April 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shpitalnik and Artyukh 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 27 March 2025,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 applicants were represented by Ms Olga Ivanivna Kormushyna, a lawyer practising in Kyiv, Ukraine.3. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.THE FACTS4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.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 Yaremiychuk and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 2720/13 and 6 others, §§ 21-36, 9 December 2021) the Court has 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).APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Yaremiychuk and Others, cited above, §§ 45-50), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It further considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table in respect of pecuniary damage and costs and expenses and rejects the remainder of the applicants’ claims on that account.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation