Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Art 34 • Victim • Confiscation of lawfully acquired jewellery belonging to the applicant's wife and imposition of a fine following his failure to declare it to customs authorities while transiting through Serbia • Victim status in case-specific circumstances • Applicant personally affected by harm sustained by confiscation measure • Constitutional Court's explicit acknowledgment that jewellery was applicant's "possession"
Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Mandatory nature of confiscation left no discretion to the domestic authorities to assess its proportionality and deprived the applicant of any reasonable opportunity to effectively challenge the measures • Individual and excessive burden imposed on applicant
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer , President , Branko Lubarda, Armen Harutyunyan, Anja Seibert-Fohr, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, Anne Louise Bormann, Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.