Marina LAZOVIĆ v. Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is28. made in May 2024, and on June 20 of the same year announced the decision in the case Marina Lazović against Serbia, number 58721/16.
It's a decisionbroughto three-member Board.
The case refers to the application of regulations in misdemeanor proceedings in which the applicant was found guilty of driving a motor vehicle for which import duties had not been paid, which was owned by her brother and which had French registration plates. The applicant complained that domestic decisions were improperly explained, as well as that her conviction was based on domestic regulations that are unpredictable. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
The Customs Administration - Niš Customs House filed a request to initiate misdemeanor proceedings against the applicant, because she used a passenger vehicle in public traffic with foreign license plates for which there was no evidence that it was reported to the customs authority when entering the customs territory of the Republic of Serbia and for which they were not paid customs duties. Namely, the applicant was stopped by the traffic police in Leskovac and during the control it was determined that the passenger vehicle she was driving was the property of her brother who was not in the vehicle with her, while the applicant had the authority to drive it.
On October 17, 2013, the Misdemeanor Court in Leskovac - Department in Medveđa found the applicant guilty of violating the Customs Act, imposed a monetary and protective measure of confiscating the vehicle, and ordered her to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Deciding on the applicant's appeal, the Misdemeanor Appellate Court - Division in Nis, on January 14, 2014, changed the first-instance verdict in the part that related to the amount of the imposed sentence, so it was reduced.
The applicant submitted a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court against the first-instance and second-instance verdicts, emphasizing the violation of the right to a fair trial.
On March 1, 2016, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's constitutional appeal.
Customs and traffic regulations were relevant to the applicant's case.
Customs Law prescribes import duties for certain goods, but does not exclude the application of traffic regulations as long as the enforcement of customs regulations is not jeopardized.
Regulation on customs-approved handling of goods foresees the possibility of private use of one's own vehicle registered abroad without paying import duties, for domestic natural persons with approved temporary residence outside Serbia and members of their immediate families, as long as the owner of the vehicle is in the customs territory of Serbia.
Law on Road Traffic Safety stipulates that, although a person with a residence in Serbia does not normally have the right to drive a vehicle registered abroad, he acquires this right if he is accompanied by a person who has this right, i.e. persons residing in Serbia who had an approved residence abroad for a continuous period of at least 6 months.
Regulation on the obligation to register motor vehicles driven by persons residing in the Republic of Serbia stipulates that a person with a residence in Serbia cannot drive a vehicle registered abroad without registering it in Serbia, unless it is a person with a residence in Serbia who has an approved temporary residence abroad for longer than 6 months, or a member of the immediate family of such a person.
COMPLAINTS APPLICANTS AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted the petition to the Court on September 27, 2016.
In the petition, she complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) and about the violation of the principle of punishment based only on the law from Article 7 of the Convention, considering that the decisions of domestic courts in her case were based on unpredictable domestic legislation (because customs and traffic regulations, taken together, are contradictory) and that the decisions were not properly explained. She especially pointed out that the provisions of the Customs Law were not applicable to her case, because the vehicle she was driving was never intended for import.
THE DECISION THE COURT
The court assessed that all the applicant's complaints should be investigated only according to Article 7 of the Convention, and that the misdemeanor in question related to customs was of a criminal nature and, as such, clearly entailed guarantees from the aforementioned Article of the Convention.
The court observed that the regulations on road traffic, which the applicant referred to as more favorable to her case, were not applicable in the way she represented it, since the conditions prescribed by them were not met. The applicant's brother was not in the vehicle with her, or even in Serbia, at the time when she was stopped by the police. The possibility of applying the term "close family" to the applicant and her brother was also questionable.
The court further noted that there are indeed differences between the customs and traffic regulations relevant to the case in question; however, the Court took the view that it is quite reasonable to prefer customs regulations in a case involving customs matters.
Taking into account all of the above, the Court concluded that the manner in which the relevant provisions of the Customs Law were applied in the case of the applicant was not contrary to Article 7 of the Convention.
Therefore, the Court assessed that the applicant's complaints were clearly unfounded and should be dismissed in accordance with Article 35, para. 3. (a) and 4. of the Convention.