RACHEVI v. BULGARIA
Doc ref: 46024/12 • ECHR ID: 001-217838
Document date: May 10, 2022
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
Published on 30 May 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 46024/12 Rosen Atanasov RACHEV and Dimitrichka Ilieva RACHEVA against Bulgaria lodged on 13 July 2012 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 2003 the first applicant was convicted for holding large quantities of counterfeit money, which triggered forfeiture proceedings against him and his wife – the second applicant. The proceedings ended on 13 January 2012 with a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation. The national courts ordered the forfeiture of immoveable properties, vehicles and sums of money, after finding that the applicants had not had sufficient income to acquire them, and considering them proceeds of crime on the basis of the presumption contained in Article 4(1) of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act. After the judgment of the first- and second-instance courts, the applicants paid each time 7,956 Bulgarian levs (the equivalent of 4,070 euros) in court fees in order to have their appeal and cassation appeal examined.
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 upon appeal 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?