Communicated on 14 March 2019

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 23773/17 Ljupch o KOSTOVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 20 March 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns misdemeanour proceedings in which the national customs authorities issued a fine and confiscated 9,100 euros from the applicant, which he had failed to declare upon leaving the respondent State . The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the confiscation order by means of an administrative action. His request that the customs authorities hold an oral hearing was dismissed as irrelevant. Similarly, the authorities did not take into consideration the applicant ’ s request that they produce the video recordings from the border-crossing, which he claimed, would have proven that he had reported the money in question. The domestic authorities and administrative courts held that the applicant should have reported the money upon crossing the border. Having failed to do so, the confiscation measure was applied in accordance with domestic law.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Has there been an oral hearing in the present case , as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Özmurat İnşaat Elektrik Nakliyat Temizlik San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti . v. Turkey , no. 48657/06, § 37, 28 November 2017 )?

(b) Were the applicant ’ s defence rights restricted to an extent incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in view of the domestic courts ’ refusal to admit into evidence the video recordings of the border-crossing point kept by the customs authorities (see Mirilashvili v. Russia , no. 6293/04, § 228, 11 December 2008)?

2. Did the confiscation of the applicant ’ s money strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the applicant ’ s right of property in compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Gabrić v. Croatia, no. 9702/04, §§ 36-39, 5 February 2009)?