Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Aksüngür and Others v. Serbia:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Serbia violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the case of five applicants who had their cash confiscated for failing to declare sums exceeding 10,000 euros when entering or transiting through Serbia. The Court found that the broad and imprecise legislative framework, combined with the domestic courts’ failure to conduct a meaningful analysis of the necessary sanction in each case, did not ensure a fair balance between the general interest and the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. The ECtHR emphasized that the domestic courts did not adequately assess the proportionality of the confiscation measures, considering factors such as the applicants’ intent, the origin of the money, and other relevant circumstances. As a result, the Court concluded that the applicants had to bear an individual and excessive burden.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** The judgment begins by outlining the case’s subject matter, which concerns the confiscation of money from the applicants for breaching the obligation to declare sums exceeding 10,000 euros.
* **Facts:** This section details the factual background, including the applicants’ nationalities, their entry or transit through Serbia, the customs controls, and the seizure of cash. It also describes the misdemeanour proceedings against the applicants, the decisions of the domestic courts, and additional facts concerning the origin of the confiscated cash.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** This part presents the domestic law and practice, including the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, provisions regarding the transfer of cash across the border, the Foreign Currency Transactions Act, the Money Laundering Act, and the Misdemeanours Act. It also discusses the practice of the Constitutional Court and relevant international material, such as Council of Europe and European Union law.
* **The Law:** This section includes the joinder of the applications and the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It covers admissibility and merits, including the parties’ submissions and the Court’s assessment. The Court’s assessment addresses whether there was an interference with the applicants’ right of property, the applicable rule, and whether the interference was justified.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** This section deals with just satisfaction, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.
* **Appendix:** The appendix provides additional details, such as the applicants’ names, dates of birth, nationalities, legal representatives, customs control information, dates of court decisions, fines imposed, confiscated amounts, and constitutional appeals.
**3. Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** The Court held that Serbia violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which protects the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
* **Disproportionate Interference:** The Court found that the confiscation of the applicants’ money was a disproportionate interference with their right to property.
* **Broad and Imprecise Legislative Framework:** The Court criticized the broad and imprecise legislative framework in Serbia, which allowed for arbitrary application of the confiscation measures.
* **Failure to Conduct Meaningful Analysis:** The Court emphasized that the domestic courts failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of the necessary sanction in each case, considering factors such as the applicants’ intent, the origin of the money, and other relevant circumstances.
* **Just Satisfaction:** The Court awarded the applicants the full amounts that were confiscated from them in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, plus any tax that may be chargeable, as well as costs and expenses.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians and Ukrainian citizens who have had their assets confiscated in Serbia under similar circumstances. They may be able to rely on this judgment to challenge the legality and proportionality of such measures.
