1.

Is Article 44(1) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, (1) read in conjunction with Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 59(2) of the Zakon za administrativnite narushenia i nakazania (Law on administrative offences and administrative penalties, ‘the ZANN’), which excludes the owner of property confiscated pursuant to a penalty notice from the group of persons entitled to lodge an appeal against that penalty notice if the owner did not commit the offence?

2.

Is Article 22(7) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, read in conjunction with Articles 29 and 44 thereof and Article 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 232(1) of the Zakon za mitnitsite (Law on Customs, ‘the ZM’), which excludes appeals in respect of a penalty notice issued against an unknown offender, where national law allows property belonging to a third party not party to the administrative offence proceedings to be confiscated for the benefit of the State pursuant to that notice?

3.

Is Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA, (2) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted as meaning that it applies a fortiori where the act is not a criminal offence and as precluding national legislation, such as Article 59(2) of the ZANN, which excludes the owner of property confiscated from the group of persons entitled to lodge an appeal, or, such as Article 232 of the ZM, which expressly states that a notice by which property is confiscated under national law from a third party not party to the administrative offence proceedings is not open to appeal?