Hudoc No violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 6-1
An aeroplane was seized as liable to forfeiture pursuant to section 141(1) of the 1979 Act. It was restored on payment of a penalty of andpound;50,000. The company disputed that the aircraft was liable to forfeiture and proceedings were commenced under Schedule 3 of the Act but the aircraft was condemned as forfeit. The company argued that it had been subjected to a criminal penalty. By a bare majority, the Court concluded that the matters complained of did not involve the determination of a criminal charge. Section 141 provided a process in rem against any vehicle used in smuggling. No criminal charges had been brought and the criminal courts had not been involved in the matter. There was no threat of criminal proceedings in the event of non-compliance. The fact that property rights had been adversely affected could not of itself lead to the conclusion that a criminal charge had been brought. There had been no confiscation, though payment of a sum of money was required. In a dissenting judgment, Judge Walsh attached importance to the fact that the aircraft was still in transit and loaded with passengers and the company had no alternative to paying the sum demanded. It was abundantly clear that it was the intention of the authorities to impose a penalty of andpound;50,000 and they succeeded in that. That penalty was levied in personam.
18465/91, (1995) 20 EHRR 150, [1995] ECHR 15
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6.1, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 141(1)
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Lindsay v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 20-Feb-2002
The applicant was stopped at Customs carrying cigarettes over the quantity set for personal use. His car was seized, and Customs refused to return it. The cigarettes were for his own use and for sale to family members. He claimed the seizure was an . .
Cited – Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
gora_custCA2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.165369