the Applicant mainly invokes his rights to use (usus) his companies and to enjoy the income therefrom (fructus). i. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Charter in respect of SOCOTRAC 266. With regard to the withdrawal of SOCOTRAC's customs agent licence, the Court notes that the Respondent State merely asserts that it was a penalty for noncompliance with the requisite conditions, without explaining the nature of the conditions to be fulfilled and whether the conditions in question emanate from a new regulation or existed at the time of incorporation of the company in 2004. The Respondent State also does not indicate whether, in the present case, a formal notice of default accompanied by a moratorium had previously been served on SOCOTRAC. 267. the The Court notes, moreover, that contrary to the Respondent State's contention , letters dated 21 and 23 November 2016, respectively, suspending SOCOTRAC's container terminal and withdrawing its customs agent licence expressly indicate that the said measures were taken "following the discovery of 18 kgs cocaine, a banned substance, in a container said to contain turkey gizzards imported by the company COMaN for transfer to the Applicant's container terminal". 268. On the basis of the two letters cited above, the Court considers that the customs authorities were in the wrong regarding the two decisions taken on 21 and 23 November 2016 , respectively, whereas already on 4 November 2016, the Cotonou First Class Court of First Instance ruling in the case of 18 kgs. of cocaine had acquitted the Applicant. 269 . The Court holds in conclusion that the Respondent State violated Article 14 of the Charter for having prevented the Applicant from exercising his commercial activity and to derive income from the said activity . I