ÇobturTuret Turİzm TİCARET VE NAKLİYAT LTD. ŞTİ. against Serbia
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is3. June 2025. brought, and 24. June of the same year announced the verdict in the caseÇObentur TourİZm TİCaret Ve NakloİYat Ltd. ŞTİ. against Serbia, No. 32398/19.
The verdict isbrought The three-member committee.
The case refers to the confiscation of the applicant's vehicles in criminal proceedings. The Court took the position to be compulsory for the applicant's company's vehicle. Combined with the absence of actual possibilities to obtain the applicant's asset's property and not to be a fair balance between the applicant's general interest and the right to enjoy its property, and that the individual burden was put to the applicant's company exothed. |
Circumstances Case
Dana 5. August 2016. The applicant's cargo vehicle was seized after the Serbian border police revealed that it was used to transport illegal migrants.
Senior Court in Sremska Mitrovica is 21. Marta 2017 years, With a final judgment, he condemned the vehicle driver to the prison for the criminal offense of the unauthorized crossing of the state border and smuggling People referred to in Article 350. paragraph 2. of the Criminal Code (hereinafter: KZ) and imposed a measure of security revocation of vehicles. The company is not prosecuted in Serbia, nor in Turkey.
The Company participated in criminal proceedings as a damaged party and opposed the confiscation. He claimed that he did not participate or find out about the part and that the vehicle was not rewritten to hide illegal migrants. However, domestic courts called on Art. 87. and 350. CS, in accordance with which any vehicle used to commit criminals must be confiscated as such, as such a measure is required as required by law, regardless of owners' participation in committing a criminal offense. The vehicle has become the public property of the state.
The Constitutional Court is 17. January 2019. rejected the Constitutional Complaint of the Applicant's Company in which the violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to peaceful enjoyment of the property.
Complaints Companies Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The company submitted to the applicant to court 10. June 2019. Years.
In the petitions, complaints were presented to the right to peacefully to the asset referred to in Article 1. Protocols to the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the applicant's behavior that was in good faith and its property rights. The company claims claimed that the disputed subtraction was neither fair nor in proportion.
Decision Court
The Court assessed that the seizory's seizure and confiscation of the company unequivocally considers interference with its property rights. Furthermore, he believed that it was not a disputed condition for the legality or legitimate goal of this measure, and that its proportionality was the only remaining important factor.
Furthermore, the Court stated that the company was requested by the return of his vehicle, as well as the domestic courts, including the Constitutional Court, so that the confiscation of each vehicle was used for the commission of a criminal offense, regardless of attention and good faith by the owner.
Consequently, although there was an opportunity to present their arguments before the competent authorities - there were no indications that the company's company did not have knowledge about criminal driver activities, nor showed negligence in terms of regular vehicle controls. In such circumstances, the Court assessed that the Company did not have effective means of returning their vehicle, with the relevant domestic legislation and court practice, the existence or non-existence of a causal connection between the applicant's behavior and the commitment. Therefore, the Court did not accept the government's argument that the random nature of the measure was successfully mitigated by the applicant's company's ability to present their arguments before the domestic court.
Moreover, the Court did not accept the government's argument that the company had an effective opportunity to recover for their material loss, seeking from drivers convicted of people who were responsible for the damage suffered. In a similar situation, the Court previously decided that uncertainty for compensation for compensation arises for compensationbona fide owner of confiscated property because it could be found to be insolvent. The claim for damages does not offerbona fide owners the opportunity to present their case before the competent domestic authorities.
The court is starting from the above occupied attitude to be compulsory to the applicant's company's vehicles, in Combined with the absence of actual possibilities to obtain the applicant's asset's property and that a fair balance between the applicant's general interests and the right to enjoy its property, and that the individual burden was put on the applicant's company exceedingly.
Given the present, the Court found that there was a violation of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of the company's company established by Article 1. Protocol number 1 with the Convention.
Fairly Gratification (Article 41 of the Convention)
The company applicant did not request any Material, nor intangible damage in accordance with Rule 60. The Rules of Court. The Court did not notice any exceptional circumstance that would require to award fair satisfaction for intangible damage in the specific case.