The European Court of Human Rights has published its decision on the case ‘Museyan v. Armenia,’ filed on December 21, 2012.

According to Iravaban.net, the applicant, Lidia Museyan, is an Armenian citizen born in 1971 and residing in Yerevan.

It is noted that on October 25, 2010, the applicant purchased a car in the USA for $14,800 and sent it to Armenia.

On January 19, 2011, the car arrived in Armenia. The applicant claimed that on the same day, her representative was warned at customs that if a customs declaration was not submitted and the car was not cleared within 10 days, liability could arise under the Customs Code.

On January 20 and 21 of the same year, the applicant sent inquiries to the State Revenue Committee (SRC) about the name of the body that established the rules for customs declaration of these vehicles and the law containing such rules.

On January 25, the applicant sent another letter to the Committee, insisting that she had no obligations regarding the payment of customs duties and value-added tax, as long as there was no officially published procedure for submitting a customs declaration that would apply to individuals.

It was impossible for her to register the car with the Traffic Police, as she couldn’t provide them with a customs declaration validated by the customs authorities. After the ten-day deadline for its submission, on January 29, she was subjected to criminal liability, and the car was confiscated. She asked the SRC to provide her with everything necessary to register the car with the Traffic Police by that day.

On January 27 and 31, the Committee responded to the applicant’s letters, stating that the mentioned procedure was established by the order of the Customs Administration on June 12, 1998.

On January 31, the customs brokerage company engaged by Lidia Museyan submitted a customs declaration to the Committee on behalf of the applicant, indicating the customs value of her car as $14,800. According to the applicant, the customs officer handwrote ‘17,020’ on the customs declaration, this number being the customs value of the car in USD, set by that officer.

It turned out that the customs brokerage company then resubmitted the customs declaration, stating the customs value of the car as the number written by the customs officer on the original declaration. Based on the resubmitted declaration, the applicant paid 1,356,454 AMD in VAT and 616,570 AMD in customs duty. On the same day, the Committee gave the applicant a certificate confirming that she had paid all necessary fees for her car.

Proceedings Initiated by the Applicant 

At the Administrative Court 

On April 21, 2011, Lidia Museyan initiated proceedings against the Committee in the Administrative Court, asserting that the interference with matters related to her property was not prescribed by law.

On November 9 of the same year, the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s claim.

The court ruled that the law requires everyone to pay customs duties, including customs duties and VAT, when importing goods into Armenia under the ‘import for free circulation’ regime, and that the requirement to fulfill this obligation was not dependent on the actions of an administrative body. The court rejected the applicant’s argument that she was not obliged to submit a customs declaration and had the right to obtain the certificate necessary for registering her car without it.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeal 

On December 8, 2011, the applicant filed an appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal. On March 20, 2012, the court rejected the applicant’s appeal and left the decision of the examining court unchanged.

To the applicant’s argument that the court of first instance had not taken into account the fact that she had allegedly been forced to pay excess customs duties, the Administrative Court of Appeal noted that this issue was not subject to examination by the courts, as the applicant had challenged the legality of her obligation to submit a customs declaration and had not questioned the legality of the customs value or the method of its determination.

Proceedings in the Court of Cassation 

On April 19, 2012, the applicant filed a cassation appeal. On June 6, the court declared the cassation appeal inadmissible due to lack of grounds.

Decision of the European Court of Human Rights 

The Court noted that it disagreed with the applicant that the interference was not lawful. It is noted that the requirement to pay customs duties and VAT for vehicles imported into Armenia was clearly established by law.

The Court unanimously declared the complaint inadmissible.

Mariam Antonyan