001{08 experiencing serious economic difficulties, and thus shrinking their recreational space. The Applicant prays the Court to consider the prejudice caused by the measure and award him reparation. 107. The Respondent State submits that the tax procedures against the Applicant's companies are quite legal and prays the Court to dismiss the claim for reparation sought by the Applicant. 108. The Court notes that the tax adjustments followed by the seizure effected on the Applicant's accounts, those of his family members and all the other seizures consequent upon the fiscal procedures triggered in the wake of the international drug trafficking case, cover the accounting and financial years 2014,2015,2016 and 2017 of the companies JRL SA, SGI ELITE and COMON SA, the latter involved in the importation of frozen products and is, besides, the sole shareholder of SGI ELITE. As for JLR SA, it operates in the frozen food business just like COMON SA. 109. The documents on file reveal that the said seizures were made in all the local banks where the Applicant and members of his family have accounts as well as in the accounts of JLR SA, SGI ELITE and COMON SA without specifying the amount representing the portion exempt from legal attachment. 110. The Court notes that such a seizure which disregards the non-sizeable portion, notwithstanding the reason, is clearly unlawful and places the Applicant in a situation which prevents him from carrying on his normal economic activities and deprives his family of the means of subsistence. The Court is of the opinion that in these circumstances, the Applicant suffered real prejudice arising from the violation of his right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 7 of the Charter. 29 S td.^^^q @