CASE OF VASILEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano
5. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Kavadarci. 6. In April 2000, while criminal proceedings were pending against a certain Mr I.A., the latter sold a lorry (“the lorry”) to a company, M. 7. On 13 June 2000 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the Trial Court”) convicted Mr I.A. of smuggling nearly 9 tonnes of sugar, which he had transported in the lorry in November 1997. According to the Government, the court dismissed the prosecutor’s application to have the lorry confiscated, given that Mr I.A. had stated that he had already sold it. The court considered that the conditions for confiscation of the lorry under Article 68 (2) of the Criminal Code 1996 (see paragraph 21 below) had not been fulfilled: specifically it had not been established that the lorry could be used again to commit an offence; that the confiscation had been necessary for the protection of safety or for reasons of ethics; and that the lorry had been specially adjusted for the commission of specific type of offences. On 20 November 2001, following separate appeals by Mr I.A. and the public prosecutor, the Skopje Court of Appeal found the public prosecutor’s application immaterial (беспредметна) and quashed all aspects of this judgment. 8. On 17 September 2003 the Trial Court convicted Mr I.A. in absentia. It fined him and ordered, under Article 278 (3) of the Criminal Code 1996, the confiscation of the lorry and the sugar (“the confiscation order”). In the absence of an appeal, the judgment became final on 29 October 2003. 9. On 6 September 2004 the company M. sold the lorry to the applicant, who later registered the lorry in his name. 10. On 12 June 2006 the Kavadarci Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) enforced the confiscation order of 17 September 2003 against the applicant and issued a record of enforcement (записник за извршување). 11. On 15 November 2006 the applicant objected to the enforcement of the confiscation order, arguing that Mr I.A. had died on 21 March 2005 and that the confiscation order accordingly could not be enforced. There had been no injunction restricting the sale of the lorry. He had been the lawful owner and he had been making his living using the lorry. Lastly, he stated that he had sought, in separate civil proceedings, return of the lorry (see paragraph 14 below). 12. On 20 November 2006 the execution-of-sanctions judge of the Trial Court rejected the objection as inadmissible, finding that the applicant had no procedural standing. It found that the confiscation order had been enforced in accordance with section 355 of the Enforcement of Sanctions Act (see paragraph 26 below). It further found that the applicant, as the third person from whom the lorry had been confiscated, could assume his rights under section 129(5) of the Criminal Proceedings Act (see paragraph 25 below). 13. The applicant appealed. On 6 December 2006 a three-judge panel of the Trial Court dismissed his appeal reiterating that he had no right to object to the enforcement of the confiscation order. However, he had been entitled to claim, in civil proceedings, return of the lorry. Civil courts had jurisdiction, under section 129(5) of the Criminal Proceedings Act, to reverse a final confiscation order issued in criminal proceedings and order the return of the confiscated item. 14. On 19 June 2006 the applicant submitted a civil claim seeking that the first-instance court declare him to be the owner of the lorry and to order the State to restore it to his possession. In the case of failure of his first claim, he sought that the State would reimburse him for the upgrades made to the lorry. In this latter context, he identified the upgrades that he had installed in the lorry. He further maintained that he was the bona fide and lawful owner of the lorry. He argued that the authorities had failed to seize the lorry immediately after the offence had been committed (на лице место) and to note a ban on the sale of the lorry on its registration certificate. As he was making his living off the lorry, he requested an injunction restricting the State from selling or otherwise disposing of the lorry until the final resolution of the dispute. 15. By decisions of 29 June and 16 November 2006 respectively, the first-instance court and the Skopje Court of Appeal (“the second-instance court”) dismissed the applicant’s application for an injunction finding no evidence that in the absence of such a measure his claim would be considerably affected or that he would sustain irreparable damage. 16. On 2 March 2007 the applicant informed the first-instance court that Mr I.A. had died in Austria in 2005. 17. On 10 May 2007 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It established that Mr I.A., who knew that the lorry could have been confiscated, had sold it to the company M. At the relevant time, neither the manager of M. nor the applicant had known that the lorry had been used in the commission of the offence and that it had been subject to a confiscation order. Relying on Articles 68 and 278 (3) of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 21 and 22 below), the court stated that: “Confiscation is a safety measure, the typical aim of which is to remove conditions which are convenient for the commission of offences, and it is a condition for ordering such a measure that the offender has been sentenced, as in the present case. The court considers that it is mandatory to confiscate the [lorry] under the afore-mentioned provisions, because this safety measure has a wider influence [in the sense of] general deterrence of all future offenders of this type of offences, and otherwise the offenders would be encouraged, after the offence has been committed, to dispose of the means with which they committed the offence and, thus, to even acquire pecuniary benefit; furthermore that would have a negative influence on the ethics of the wider public, [that is to say] on general deterrence ... ... Given that from the evidence and the above-mentioned statutory provisions it has been established that the [lorry] in question was confiscated in favour of [the respondent State] in lawful proceedings, the court finds that the [respondent State] has therein obtained ownership of the [lorry] in question on the basis of a final and enforceable judgment ... in accordance with sections 112(2) and 154 of the [Property Act.] For these reasons, the court dismisses the [applicant’s] main claim and also the alternative claim, because it concerns upgrades made to the [lorry]. On the other hand, the court considers that the [applicant], as the bona fide owner, can be indemnified for the value of the entire [lorry], including the upgrades, but solely from the offender, [Mr I.A.], in accordance with Article 68 (3) of the [Criminal Code], and not from the [respondent State] ... The court dismisses as groundless the argument that at the moment of confiscation of the [lorry] in question it was not owned by [Mr I.A.] but by the [applicant] as the bona fide possessor (совесен владетел), given that from the evidence it was established that when the offence was committed the [lorry] was owned by [Mr I.A.] and the safety measure confiscation of the [lorry] was issued on those grounds. The court also considers groundless the [applicant’s] representative’s arguments that under section 129(5) of the Criminal Proceedings Act the final decision for confiscation of the [lorry] could be amended with a decision in civil proceedings if there were a dispute concerning the ownership of the confiscated items, given that this provision would have been applied if the [lorry] had been sold to the [applicant] before the offence was committed and had, under any legal basis, remained in the factual possession of the convicted [Mr I.A.] and he, after having sold it, committed the crime; but in the present case it is vice versa; firstly the offence was committed and then the [lorry] was sold.” 18. The court also established that the applicant had upgraded the lorry to the value of 69,150 Macedonian denars (MKD). Furthermore, on the basis of the applicant’s and two witnesses’ statements, the court established that the applicant had bought the lorry for 4,300 euros (EUR). 19. The applicant appealed. He stated that he had previously requested that the first-instance court obtain evidence from the Ministry of the Interior which would confirm that Mr I.A. had died in Austria in 2005. He argued that the domestic authorities had failed to ban Mr I.A. from disposing of the lorry or to seize the lorry at the time the offence had been discovered. He also argued that he was the bona fide owner and that he had obtained title to the lorry by adverse possession (одршка). The first-instance court had incorrectly applied section 129(5) of the Criminal Proceedings Act. The lorry had been confiscated nine years after the offence had been committed. The State had been unlawfully enriched by the value of the upgrades installed by the applicant. 20. On 19 October 2007 Skopje Court of Appeal (“the second-instance court”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and reasons given by the lower court. On 13 November 2007 this judgment was served on the applicant.