Published on 3 January 2022

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 27027/18 2002 EVRO BUS UVOZ-IZVOZ PRILEP DOO against North Macedonia lodged on 5 June 2018 communicated on 6 December 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

In misdemeanour proceedings the applicant company was charged with customs offence, namely that it had not returned an imported vehicle under customs supervision in the designated period and had used the said vehicle although the formal customs procedures had not been implemented and the taxes had not been paid. In those proceedings the vehicle was confiscated. After the Administrative Court quashed the Customs Authority’s decision (in which the applicant was found guilty of the charges raised against it) on 14 January 2013 and discontinued the proceeding because of the absolute time-bar, the State restored the applicant in the possession of the vehicle, as its owner ( се враќа на сопственикот ). Subsequently, the applicant company unsuccessfully claimed compensation for the damages and the reduced value of the vehicle of which it had been disposed for five years while the misdemeanour proceedings had been pending, and for the loss of profit. On 9 January 2015, in the decision dismissing the applicant’s compensation claim, the Skopje Court of First Instance stated that “...the discontinuation of the misdemeanour proceedings for becoming time-barred does not mean that [the applicant] did not commit the customs offence ... [The applicant] does not dispute the fact that the vehicle was taken out and was not returned in the customs storage in the designated time ...”. On 20 October 2016 the Skopje Court of Appeal added “... [the applicant] gave [the authorities] a reason to initiate the misdemeanour proceedings against it ... Moreover, [the applicant] was found guilty ... The quashing of the decision by the Administrative Court cannot influence the fact that the misdemeanour proceedings were initiated due to [the applicant’s] actions ...”. On 23 November 2017 the Supreme Court fully endorsed the reasoning of the lower courts.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Were the decisions of the civil courts (see above) and the supporting reasoning for the refusal to award the applicant compensation compatible with the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia , no. 13610/12, §§ 80-86, 15 June 2021; Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan , nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, §§ 68-73, 22 April 2021; and Milachikj v. North Macedonia, no. 44773/16, §§ 31-40, 14 October 2021 (not final))?