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.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.11.  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. The Court therefore concludes that applicants’ complaints in this regard must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Articles 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14.  In application no. 864/16 the applicant did not submit any claims for just satisfaction, despite being invited to do so. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.15.  As regards the remaining applicants, 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.FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the disproportionate sanctions in customs cases;Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants; Holds(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants in applications nos. 19254/16 and 31952/16, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims (in applications nos. 19254/16 and 31952/16) for just satisfaction, and costs and expenses.Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 December 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Sârcu Acting Deputy Registrar President  APPENDIXList of applications raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention(disproportionate sanctions in customs cases)No.Application no.Date of introductionApplicant’s nameYear of birth Representative’s name and locationSpecific circumstancesof the caseSanction imposed Fine, if any, in UAH(converted to EUR)Final domestic decisionAmount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant(in euros)[1]Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application(in euros)[2]   864/1611/12/2015Dmytro Igorovych SAPITASH1987 MamchenkoIgor OleksandrovychLutskThe applicant on 08/04/2015 had failed to declare cash: 16,520 US dollars (USD) and 10,070 Polish złoty (PLN) at the customs border crossing point “Ustyluh” while choosing the “green corridor” for border crossing. On 23/07/2015 he was found guilty of a breach of the customs rules, Article 471 of the Customs Code. An administrative fine was imposed on him, along with the confiscation of the amount that exceeded the permitted limit.Confiscation of USD 5,673 (5,070 euros (EUR)) and PLN 10,070(EUR 2,380) and a fine of 1,700 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)(EUR 68) Volyn Regional Court of Appeal, 04/09/2015--   19254/1623/03/2016Ravil Gamletovych KASUMOV1978 ZhukovaNadiya DamirivnaKharkivThe applicant, on 02/07/2015, had failed to declare USD 20,700 at Boryspil airport in Kyiv while choosing the “green corridor” for border crossing. On 04/08/2015 he was found guilty of a breach of the customs rules, Article 471 of the Customs Code. An administrative fine was imposed on him, along with the confiscation of the amount that exceeded the permitted limit.Confiscation ofUSD 9,600(EUR 8,600) and a fine of UAH 1,700 (EUR 69)Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal, 23/09/20158,600-   31952/1627/05/2016Rustam Andriyovych BONDARENKO1981 Kobyletskyy Vyacheslav ViktorovychKyivThe applicant, on 10/09/2015, failed to declare USD 20,000 and UAH 1,500 at “Kyiv” airport while choosing the “green corridor” for border crossing. On 06/11/2015 he was found guilty of a breach of the customs rules, Article 471 of the Customs Code. An administrative fine was imposed on him, along with the confiscation of the amount that exceeded the permitted limit.Confiscation of USD 8,800(EUR 8,002) and UAH 1,340(EUR 51) and fine of UAH 1,700 (EUR 64)Kyiv Court of Appeal, 14/12/20158,0531,000 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable.[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.