Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in the case of *Shpitalnik and Artyukh v. Ukraine*:
**Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR found Ukraine in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to disproportionate sanctions imposed on the applicants in customs cases. The applicants complained about the confiscation of undeclared cash and the imposition of fines, arguing that these sanctions were excessive. The Court agreed, referencing its previous judgments on similar issues, and concluded that the combined penalty of confiscation and fines placed a disproportionate burden on the applicants. The Court awarded pecuniary damage and costs and expenses to the applicants.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The judgment begins with the procedural history, outlining the applications made by Shpitalnik and Artyukh against Ukraine. It then summarizes the facts of the case, followed by the legal analysis. The Court decided to join the two applications due to their similar subject matter. The core of the decision addresses the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, focusing on the principle of proportionality in sanctions related to customs violations. The Court referenced its prior case law, particularly *Yaremiychuk and Others v. Ukraine*, which dealt with similar issues. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41 of the Convention, addressing just satisfaction for the applicants, awarding pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
**Key Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Disproportionate Sanctions:** The central takeaway is the emphasis on the principle of proportionality in customs-related sanctions. The ECtHR reiterated that while states have the right to enforce customs regulations, the penalties imposed must be proportionate to the offense.
* **Confiscation and Fines:** The decision highlights that the combination of confiscating undeclared cash and imposing a fine can be considered a disproportionate burden, violating Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Reference to Prior Case Law:** The judgment references *Yaremiychuk and Others v. Ukraine*, indicating that the ECtHR is consistently applying similar principles in cases involving disproportionate customs sanctions in Ukraine.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court’s approach to just satisfaction is also noteworthy. While acknowledging a violation, the Court also stated that this finding 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.
**** This decision is important for Ukraine because it reinforces the need for Ukrainian authorities to review and potentially revise their customs regulations and sanctioning practices to ensure compliance with the principle of proportionality under the European Convention on Human Rights. It also provides a clear precedent for similar cases involving disproportionate sanctions in customs matters.
