Unauthorized seizure of a commercial vehicle and merchandise violates the right to property
JUDGMENT
Paduret v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia (no. 26626/11) 9-5-2017
SUMMARY
Right to property. Seizure. Russia. The unseemly seizure of the van and its goods and the imposition of a fine for their return have infringed the applicant’s property rights.
PROVISION
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Dumitru Paduret, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1983 and lives in Cocieri (Republic of Moldova). He is an entrepreneur. The case concerned the seizure of his van and its contents by custom officers of the self-proclaimed “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT”) in 2010 when he had been transporting merchandise to a market in Dubasari. He had to pay a fine to recover the van and merchandise. He subsequently complained to the Moldovan authorities and the Dubasari prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation. However, the investigation was suspended in 2014. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Paduret complained that the seizure of his van and merchandise as well as the imposition of a fine had breached his property rights.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by the Republic of Moldova Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by Russia
Just satisfaction: The Court held that Russia was to pay to Mr Paduret EUR 1,320 (pecuniary damage), EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)
