AKSOY against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is29. September 2026. year brought, a20. in October of the same year announced the verdict in the case Aksoyagainst Serbia, number 4320/15.
The verdict was unanimousbrought More.
The case concerns the confiscation of cash (51,000 Euros (EUR)) which the applicant tried to transfer across the state border, in violation of the relevant regulations. The applicant complained that his right to property protection was violated, claiming that the measure of permanent confiscation of money constituted an illegal and disproportionate interference with his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property. |
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant (hereinafter: the applicant) is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey and lives in Stade, FR Germany.
On December 2, 2012, around 3:50 a.m., the applicant, traveling with a companion to Turkey, where they intended to buy or rent a production hall with machines and offices, was stopped at the Gradina border crossing by border officials when leaving Serbia, while traveling from Germany to Turkey.
When asked by the customs officer if he had anything to declare, the applicant stated that he was carrying cash, and in the customs office, he took out cash in the amount of 61,000 euros from his jacket. The amount over the allowed 10,000 euros, that is, 51,000 euros, was temporarily taken from him.
Proceedings have been initiated against the applicant due to a foreign exchange violation because he did not declare cash before entering the customs area of the Republic of Serbia, as well as before entering customs control when leaving the country.
By the verdict of the Misdemeanor Court in Pirot - Department of the Court in Dimitrovgrad Pr. 3005/12 of December 24, 2012, the applicant was declared responsible for a misdemeanor and was fined RSD 50,000. At the same time, he was ordered to confiscate the object of the misdemeanor, i.e. cash in the amount of 51,000 euros.
In the appeal against the first-instance decision, submitted through the defense counsel, the applicant pointed out, among other things, that the money that was taken from him belonged to the company "AVATEK" GmbH, the owner of which is his son, and he submitted confirmations from a bank in Hamburg that the aforementioned company withdrew the amount of 68,191.86 euros, which, in his opinion, indicated that the money was legitimate.
By the judgment of the Higher Misdemeanor Court - Division in Niš P-203 Prž.517/13 of March 5, 2013, the applicant's appeal was rejected and the first-instance verdict was confirmed.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings, the applicant filed a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court, which was dismissed as clearly unfounded by decision Už-2931/2013 of February 4, 2014, because the applicant cannot relate to the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, bearing in mind the mandatory character of the sanction of confiscation of undeclared cash and the reasons given by the competent misdemeanor courts as to why partial confiscation was not justified.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted a petition to the Court on December 26, 2014.
In the petition, he complained about the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, considering that the confiscation of cash exceeding the permitted amount was an illegal and grossly disproportionate measure.
DECISION OF THE COURTA
- Victim status
Bearing in mind the fact that the applicant claimed during the entire procedure before the domestic authorities that the seized money did not belong to him but to his son's company, the Court, ex officio, examined whether the applicant in the specific case has the status of a victim in the sense of the Convention.
In this sense, the Court, first of all, stated that the applicant claimed during the proceedings before the domestic courts, and submitted evidence for his claims, that he carried the confiscated money to rent business premises in Turkey on behalf of his son's company, but that the courts considered that those documents could not prove a direct connection between the money raised and the banknotes seized at the border, so they treated that money as the applicant's.
The court further stated that the applicant possessed ready money, that during the proceedings he was treated as its owner and that the measure was imposed on him. However, even if the applicant's claims that the money in question belongs to his son's business company were to be accepted, the Court assessed that there was clearly a direct connection between the applicant and the damage he suffered through the interference with the right to property for the following reasons:1) undeclared cash that is transferred contrary to the regulations is, without regardless of the legality of its origin and whether the perpetrator is the owner of that money, confiscates it from the perpetrator of the offense in accordance with the then valid Law on Foreign Exchange Operations ("Official Gazette of RS", no. 62/06, 31/11, 119/12 and 139/14);2) confiscation and transfer of money to the state budget followed the decision of the domestic authorities against the applicant, who was the only party to the proceedings, and was a consequence of his (in)action, i.e. not reporting the money to the competent authorities and obtaining a certificate of the same - therefore, the applicant was the only addressee of those measures, regardless of the fact that they could indirectly affect his son's company, which was not a party to the proceedings and could not participate in it;3) it would be, in the circumstances of the specific case, overly formalistic to deny the applicant the status of a victim and determine that he did not have a clear and legitimate interest in contesting the measure that was imposed on him as a consequence of his (in)action and could adversely affect the financial situation and liability towards third parties.
Consequently, the Court found that the applicant has the status of a "victim" in accordance with Article 34 of the Convention.
- Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
The court stated that the domestic courts found that the applicant did not fulfill the requirements regarding the reporting of cash that he transferred during transit through Serbia, and that the purpose of the initial temporary confiscation of the money was to examine its origin and purpose in order to determine whether the applicant had committed a misdemeanor or a more serious crime such as smuggling, money laundering, tax evasion or drug trafficking. Although in further proceedings the applicant was convicted only for the misdemeanor of not declaring money during transit through Serbia, the misdemeanor courts considered it necessary to permanently confiscate all the money he transferred and did not report.
The court reminded that state interference in the right to peaceful enjoyment of property would be proportionate, it must correspond to the severity of the injury, and the sanction to the severity of the committed act.Relying on its own practice in similar cases, and especially on the judgmentAksungur et al. against Serbia, number 69080/13 and 4 other petitions, dated June 24, 2025, and bearing in mind that the domestic courts found that the applicant acted negligently, that he did not conceal the cash, that he had no criminal record and that there were no aggravating circumstances, the Court concluded that the confiscation of the cash imposed an excessive burden on the applicant, since the applicant is a person directly affected by that measure.
Consequently, the Court established a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
JUST SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)
The court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the applicant the amount of 51,000 euros as compensation for material damage. and the amount of 2,000 euros for reimbursement of expenses.