SECOND SECTION
CASE OF DIMITROV v. NORTH MACEDONIA
(Application no. 24030/19)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
22 October 2024
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dimitrov v. North Macedonia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Diana Sârcu, President,
 Jovan Ilievski,
 Gediminas Sagatys, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 24030/19) against the Republic of North Macedonia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 30 April 2019 by Mr Branislav Dimitrov (“the applicant”), a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia, who was born in 1961, lives in Skopje and was represented by Mr D. Stojanoski, a lawyer practising in Skopje;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the Government of North Macedonia (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms D. Djonova, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the seizure and subsequent confiscation by the customs authorities of the applicant’s stereo amplifier in customs-related misdemeanour proceedings against the applicant that were subsequently discontinued as the prescription period had expired. 2. On 8 March 2009 a stereo amplifier was temporarily seized from the applicant by the customs authorities in misdemeanour proceedings against him for an alleged failure to undergo the relevant importation procedure. On 20 January 2016 the misdemeanour proceedings were terminated on the basis of the expiry of the applicable prescription period without the applicant having been found guilty of any offence. The customs authorities confiscated the stereo amplifier. They relied on Article 100-a (3) and (4) of the Criminal Code (applicable mutatis mutandis to misdemeanour proceedings) which provided that objects which were used or were intended to be used to commit a crime could be confiscated if there was a danger that they could be used again to commit a crime. It further provided that the court should also issue a confiscation order in proceedings regulated by law even when, for factual or legal reasons, it was not possible for criminal proceedings to be conducted against the offender. The customs authorities informed the applicant of the possibility to submit an application for appeal with the Administrative Court within eight days from the notification date. 3. Following the applicant’s appeal, the custom authorities’ decision was upheld by the administrative courts at two levels of jurisdiction. The final judgment of the Higher Administrative Court was notified to the applicant’s lawyer on 28 January 2019. 4. The applicant submitted two final judgments of 6 July 2016 by the Higher Administrative Court (nos. 431/2016 and 1201/2015) in which seized items had been returned to the plaintiffs in those cases following the discontinuation of the proceedings owing to the expiry of the applicable prescription period. The Government provided thirteen final judgments by the same court (nos. 1160/2015, 1361/2016, 175/2017, 172/2017, 1250/2016, 195/2017, 420/2017, 732/2016, 330/2017, 962/2017, 108/2018, 105/2018 and 258/2018), rendered in the period between 18 November 2016 and 4 May 2018. In all those judgments the court had ordered the confiscation of items following the discontinuation of the proceedings owing to the expiry of the applicable prescription periods and had noted that there had been no request before the Administrative Court that the items confiscated in those cases be returned. 5. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his stereo amplifier had been seized and thereafter confiscated despite the fact that he had never been convicted.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation