Published on 27 January 2025
 
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 30177/17
Murat ALKAN against Serbia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 10 January 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The present applications concern the confiscation by misdemeanour courts of the lawfully acquired gold coins (zlatnici), gold bars (zlatne pločice) and allegedly personal gold jewellery (zlatni nakit), which the applicants individually had been carrying while transiting Serbia and had been found guilty of a failure to declare them to the Serbian customs officers at the entry border-crossing points.
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the confiscation, in addition to the imposition of fines, constituted an unlawful and/or disproportionate interference with their right of property.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, respectively, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, by the permanent confiscation of their respective gold coins, bars and jewellery?
 
2.  In the affirmative, were the interferences justified? In particular:
(a)  were they established by law?
(b)  were they done in pursuit of a legitimate aim?
(c)  did the interferences strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests and the right of the applicants, regard being had to the purpose and severity of the preventive measure, and the gravity of the committed misdemeanour? In particular, did the interference in each particular case impose an individual and excessive burden on the applicant, respectively (see, mutatis mutandis, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, §§ 52‑53, Series A no. 108; Gyrlyan v. Russia, no. 35943/15, § 24, 9 October 2018, and Yaylalı v. Serbia, no. 15887/15, §§ 47-59, 17 September 2024)?
 
In view of the above questions, the parties are further invited to provide and comment on the domestic regulations and practice relevant at the time of the seizure and confiscation of the goods, in respect of:
 
(i)  the maximum weight limit (quantity) and/or value of personal gold or that intended for commercial or investment purposes that individual travellers were allowed to carry while entering or transiting the Serbian customs territory, without being required to declare or present it to the national customs authorities;
 
(ii)  the relevant regulations and customs proceedings concerning the applicants’ duty, as transit passengers, to the declare the gold coins and/or gold jewellery to the Serbian customs authorities; having regard to the relevant decisions, have the applicants been convicted for failure to declare valuables or for failure to declare the articles intended to be imported and therefore subject to the customs duties; and
 
(iii)  what was the aim of the initial temporary seizure of the undeclared goods, and of the confiscation, as a sanction, in this context.
 
3.  Lastly, the Government are invited to comment on the following conclusions of the Constitutional Court while rejecting the applicants’ complaints in this context: (a) “that Article 58 of the Constitution (the peaceful enjoyment of possessions) does not protect the property which is object of criminal and other offences”; and (b) “if the interference had been lawful and properly reasoned [...], it was unnecessary to examine the applicant’s arguments about a lack of proportionality”.
 
 
 
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Introduction date
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Representative’s name
Location
1.
30177/17
Alkan v. Serbia
11/04/2017
Murat ALKAN
1969
Esenyurt / ISTANBUL
Turkish
Saša MUTIĆ
Belgrade
2.
34707/17
Dogru v. Serbia
02/05/2017
Abdurahman DOGRU
1989
Vienna
Turkish
Saša MUTIĆ
Belgrade
3.
51679/19
Çelik v. Serbia
24/09/2019
Hasan ÇELIK
1975
Beringen
Belgian
Saša MUTIĆ
Belgrade