Background
Ali Adel Khamza complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that sanctions imposed for failing to declare cash at the border were disproportionate. The domestic authorities treated the undeclared cash as “goods” under Article 472 of Ukraine’s Customs Code.
The sanction comprised confiscation of USD 5,000 (valued at EUR 4,405) and a fine of the same amount. The Kyiv Court of Appeal gave the final domestic decision on 2 December 2019. Khamza applied to the European Court of Human Rights on 18 February 2020.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously declared the application admissible and found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It applied the principles governing confiscation and followed its earlier Ukrainian customs-sanctions judgments, including Yaremiychuk and Others v. Ukraine and Lingys and Shpakovskyy v. Ukraine.
Confiscating all of the excess cash in addition to imposing a fine placed a disproportionate burden on the applicant and therefore unjustifiably interfered with his property rights. The finding did not mean that Khamza bore no responsibility for failing to declare the cash. The Court held that the violation finding was sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, and awarded EUR 8,754 for pecuniary damage and EUR 250 for costs and expenses.
Key Takeaways
- Full confiscation of undeclared excess cash, coupled with a fine, was disproportionate in this case.
- A customs-declaration breach may justify liability, but sanctions must remain proportionate under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- Ukraine must pay the awarded pecuniary damage and costs within three months, subject to the judgment’s interest terms.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces the Court’s established approach to Ukrainian customs cases in which undeclared cash is confiscated in full while the traveller is also fined. It confirms that enforcement of cash-declaration rules cannot impose an excessive individual burden.