GLAVCHEV AND GLAVCHEV GROUP OOD v. BULGARIA
Doc ref: 61872/11 • ECHR ID: 001-217579
Document date: May 10, 2022
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
Published on 30 May 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 61872/11 Petar Todorov GLAVCHEV and GLAVCHEV GROUP OOD against Bulgaria lodged on 20 September 2011 communicated on 10 May 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the forfeiture of alleged proceeds of crime, in proceedings under the 2005 Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act (described in Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, §§ 90-110, 13 July 2021). In 2005 the first applicant was convicted for sex trafficking, which triggered forfeiture proceedings against him and against the second applicant – a company controlled by him. After concluding that the first applicant and his wife had not had sufficient income, the national courts ordered the forfeiture as proceeds of crime of a plot of land in Plovdiv with a seven-storey office building constructed on it, owned by the second applicant but acquired with money transferred to it by the first applicant and his wife. The forfeiture became final on 21 March 2011. At different stages of the proceedings, the applicants were ordered to pay court fees in the total amount of 64,840 Bulgarian levs (the equivalent of 33,160 euros).
The applicants complain of the forfeiture of their assets, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. Moreover, they complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of having to pay the amount of court fees indicated above.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the forfeiture of the applicants’ assets in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did the domestic authorities reasonably establish that the assets at issue were the proceeds of crime (see Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, 13 July 2021)?
2. Were the court fees the applicants were ordered to pay in compliance with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, did the obligation to pay such fees place an excessive burden on the applicants, or fundamentally interfere with their financial situation?