Background
Anatoliy Zhytnikov was a logistics manager authorised to handle customs matters for a private company. In June 2017, he submitted a customs declaration for imported garlic oil, accompanied by a CMR consignment note bearing stamps indicating that sanitary and epidemiological controls had been completed. The goods were cleared and released into free circulation.
After the customs authorities received information that no such controls had occurred, domestic courts found that the document bore forged stamps. They found Zhytnikov liable for a customs offence, imposed a fine equal to the goods’ value—UAH 43,065.73—and ordered confiscation. Because the company’s goods were no longer available for confiscation, the courts instead required Zhytnikov personally to pay their value under Article 541 § 2 of the Customs Code. Both the fine and the goods’ value were ultimately recovered from him.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that Ukraine violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The interference with Zhytnikov’s possessions had a basis in domestic law and pursued legitimate aims: enforcing customs rules, protecting customs-clearance procedures, and ensuring sanitary-control requirements were observed.
However, the Court found the additional order requiring Zhytnikov to pay the value of goods he did not own was disproportionate. His role and experience as the company’s customs declarant could justify holding him liable for the offence and imposing the fine. But the domestic courts made no individual assessment of whether he owned the goods, benefited economically from their release, controlled their later disposal, or otherwise stood in a position comparable to their owner or commercial beneficiary.
Converting confiscation of the company’s unavailable goods into a personal payment obligation, on top of an equal fine, imposed an excessive individual burden. The Court awarded EUR 950 in pecuniary damage, corresponding to the amount recovered as the goods’ value, and held that the finding of a violation was sufficient compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
Key Takeaways
- A customs fine and confiscation may in principle be imposed together, but their combined effect must remain proportionate.
- A declarant’s responsibility for a customs offence does not alone justify making that person pay the value of goods owned by someone else.
- When unavailable goods are converted into a personal monetary obligation, courts must assess the individual’s connection to the goods and the proportionality of the added burden.
Why It Matters
The judgment draws a clear distinction between liability for a customs violation and personal responsibility for the economic equivalent of confiscated property. States may preserve the practical effect of confiscation when goods have entered circulation, but they cannot automatically shift that value to an employee or representative without an individualized proportionality assessment.