The order to pay the counter value of disappeared goods in Belgium

The principles traditionally established by Belgian customs legislation almost always apply without difficulty in hypothesising that the goods to be forfeited could have been seized before the judicial assessment. In the opposite case, and therefore in the absence of the physical presence of the goods, the compulsory nature of the forfeiture will have to take on a less obvious meaning. The Belgian Supreme Court and the Belgian Constitutional Court have always applied a fixed case law in this respect and have consistently ruled that, with a view to the forfeiture of goods that have not been sei... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Van Dooren, Eric
Dokumenttyp: other
Verlag/Hrsg.: Magyar Rendészettudományi Társaság Vám- és Pénzügyőri Tagozata
Schlagwörter: Removal of goods from customs supervision / obligation to pay a sum corresponding to the value of the missing goods / penalty / cumulation with a fine / proportionality / Áruk kivonása a vámfelügyelet alól / az eltűnt áru értékének megfelelő összeg megfizetésére vonatkozó kötelezettség / büntetés / halmazati bírság / arányosság / Társadalomtudományok / Társadalomtudományok/Rendészet tudományok
Sprache: unknown
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27382538
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12944/17278

The principles traditionally established by Belgian customs legislation almost always apply without difficulty in hypothesising that the goods to be forfeited could have been seized before the judicial assessment. In the opposite case, and therefore in the absence of the physical presence of the goods, the compulsory nature of the forfeiture will have to take on a less obvious meaning. The Belgian Supreme Court and the Belgian Constitutional Court have always applied a fixed case law in this respect and have consistently ruled that, with a view to the forfeiture of goods that have not been seized, the sentenced party is obliged to present these goods. In the event of failure to do so, the criminal court, to safeguard the rights to those goods, must order the defendant to pay the equivalent value of the goods he does not produce for confiscation at the request of the customs authorities. Such an order does not constitute a criminal penalty but is the civil-law consequence of the criminal conviction for forfeiture. This case law often proves to come up against criticism in legal doctrine. Since 2020 however, the Court of Justice of the European Union has removed the issue from the exclusively national enforcement context. That novelty raises whether criminal and customs legislation also allows for alternative ways of thinking. ; A belga vámjogszabályok által hagyományosan meghatározott elvek, szinte mindig nehézség nélkül alkalmazhatók, annak feltételezése esetén, hogy a lefoglalandó árukat a bírósági elbírálás előtt lefoglalhatták volna. Ellenkező esetben, és ezért az áruk fizikai jelenlétének hiányában a lefoglalás kötelező jellegének kevésbé nyilvánvaló értelmet kell nyernie. A belga Legfelsőbb Bíróság és a belga Alkotmánybíróság e tekintetben mindig is állandó ítélkezési gyakorlatot alkalmazott, és következetesen úgy döntött, hogy a lefoglalásra nem került áruk elkobzása céljából az elmarasztalt fél köteles bemutatni ezeket az árukat. Ennek elmulasztása esetén a büntetőbíróságnak az ezen árukhoz fűződő jogok ...