Published on 19 April 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 53050/21 Yavor Iliev ZLATANOV against Bulgaria lodged on 27 October 2021 communicated on 29 March 2022

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Yavor Iliev Zlatanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Sofia. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv.

2 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and as appearing on the basis of the materials submitted and relied upon by him, including six videos relating to the case (premiered on YouTube on 24 June, 2 and 31 July and 20 August 2020, and 4 and 8 October 2021) [1] , may be summarised as follows.

3 . Since the 1990s the applicant’s father has owned a group of companies whose business is the production of lifts. It appears that the companies were structured as follows: there was a holding company which fully owned three single-member limited liability companies, and the applicant’s father held all shares of that holding company. In 2002 he apparently transferred 40% of those shares to the applicant, retaining the remaining 60% for himself. The applicant and his father were apparently joint managers of all four companies.

4 . In 2017 the applicant and his father fell out. By that time the applicant’s father had apparently also fallen out with his wife (the applicant’s mother), and with his daughter (the applicant’s sister) and her husband.

5 . In two complaints which he lodged with the Sofia district prosecutor’s office in September 2017, the applicant’s father alleged that since February 2017 the applicant had been preventing him from accessing the office of their joint companies (he cited in particular one episode on 31 August 2017). He also alleged that the applicant had been irregularly disposing of company assets. He further claimed that his daughter (the applicant’s sister) and her husband had been attempting to extort from him money with threats that he would be prosecuted and “destroyed”.

6 . According to the applicant, the prosecuting authorities took no tangible steps in relation to those complaints.

7 . On 25 June 2019 the applicant, assisted by an enforcement agent and the police, took possession of a factory in Dupnitsa owned by his and his father’s companies. The applicant did so on the basis of a writ of execution apparently issued on the basis of a preliminary contract for the sale of factory to another company beneficially owned by him.

8 . In reaction to the events concerning the factory, the applicant’s father got in touch with Mr P.P., a lawyer in private practice who had been the head of the investigation department of the Sofia City prosecutor’s office in 2013-15 and is alleged by the applicant to have been implicated in various corrupt schemes. On 27 June 2019 the applicant’s father and Mr P.P. met to discuss possible ways of acting against the applicant. Mr P.P. stated that he would “solve [the] problem” and directed the applicant’s father to contact two other lawyers working with him.

9 . It appears that the following day, 28 June 2019, the Chief Prosecutor ordered that three cases opened pursuant to earlier complaints by the applicant’s father (see paragraph 5 above) be joined and sent for investigation to the National Investigation Service.

10 . The two lawyers working with Mr P.P. drew up and on 3 July 2019 lodged with the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office a fresh complaint on behalf of the applicant’s father. It alleged that the applicant, his mother, his sister and her husband, and the former and current managers of the company which had obtained some of the assets of the applicant’s and his father’s companies (see paragraph 7 above), as well as several other people, had since 2017 conspired to deprive the applicant’s father of his companies through, inter alia , extortion and money laundering.

11 . The complaint in particular reiterated the allegations that the applicant had been preventing his father from accessing the office of the jointly owned companies (see paragraph 5 above). It further alleged, with respect to the applicant, that:

(a) in May 2018 he had embezzled 1,200,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) (equivalent to 613,550 euros (EUR)) of company funds, which he had transferred from an account in a Swiss bank held jointly by him and his father into the applicant’s personal account in that bank;

(b) in August 2017 he had attempted to alter the holding company’s articles of association behind his father’s back;

(c) in 2017, acting as manager of the four jointly owned companies, he had sold company assets to another company beneficially owned by him at artificially low prices, thus prejudicing the jointly owned companies;

(d) in 2017, acting as manager of the holding company, he had undertaken to sell to the other company beneficially owned by him real property, again at an artificially low price;

(e) he had without a proper reason transferred a total of BGN 371,732.84 (equivalent to EUR 190,064) belonging to one of the four jointly owned companies to a company owned by him personally; and

(f) in June 2019 he had fictitiously sold to the company beneficially owned by him the factory in Dupnitsa owned by the holding company, and had taken possession of that factory and disrupted its business.

12 . The following day, 4 July 2019, the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation pursuant to those allegations. According to the applicant, that happened so quickly because the prosecutors who took charge of the case were acting in concert with Mr P.P.

13 . The same day, 4 July 2019, an investigator attached to the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office and a police officer interviewed the applicant’s father in relation to his allegations.

14 . Eleven days later, on 15 July 2019, the applicant’s father signed a promissory note in favour of Mr P.P.’s wife, Mrs L.P., undertaking to pay her BGN 2,816,395 (equivalent to EUR 1,440,000) on 30 November 2019. The promissory note was drawn up in the same law office as the complaint lodged on his behalf on 3 July 2019 (see paragraph 10 above).

15 . The applicant says, with reference to various media publications, that Mrs L.P. had links with the Chief Prosecutor and with a non-governmental organisation which had in 2015 organised a campaign in his favour and against people perceived as hostile to him, such as the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court of Cassation.

16 . On 17 July 2019 the applicant was arrested in his home. His mother, and sister, and his sister’s husband were apparently also arrested, as were the former and current managers of the company beneficially owned by him (see paragraphs 7 and 10 above).

17 . The same day the applicant was charged with three offences. It was alleged that (a) together with his mother, sister, sister’s husband, and former and current managers of the company beneficially owned by him, he was a member of a gang formed for the purpose of money laundering; that (b) on 20 June 2017, jointly with his mother, sister and sister’s husband, he had tried to coerce his father to transfer 40% of the shares of the holding company (see paragraph 3 above) to the applicant’s sister; and that (c) on 8 July 2019 he had tried to hide the origin of EUR 550,000 obtained through abuse of office and embezzlement, and thus launder that money, by putting it into a safe deposit box rented by his mother.

18 . On 19 July 2019 the applicant and the former and current managers of the company beneficially owned by him were brought before the Specialised Criminal Court pursuant to an application by the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office that they be detained, and on 20 July 2019 a judge of that court decided to place the applicant, but not the two others, in pre-trial detention. In the course of the hearing counsel for all three accused argued that a criminal prosecution was highly misplaced to solve a family dispute about assets, and expressed dismay at the actions of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office and at the odd and imprecise manner in which the charges had been formulated.

19 . The court held that it could not reasonably be suspected that the applicant had engaged in money laundering since the prosecution had not set out with enough particularity the predicate offences which it alleged he had committed. There was some evidence that the applicant had withdrawn EUR 550,000 from a personal bank account in Switzerland held in his father’s name, that this money had been found in a safe deposit box rented by his mother (see paragraph 26 below), and that the applicant had visited the vault in which that safe deposit box was located on 8 July 2019. It was nonetheless unclear why he had gone to the vault, and there was no direct evidence that he had put that cash there. By contrast, it could reasonably be suspected, on the basis of the statements of the applicant’s father and a company employee, that the applicant had been extorting his father to transfer shares to the applicant’s sister. There was no risk that the applicant would flee, but there was a risk that he could commit further acts of extortion against his father, since there was witness evidence that he had acted in a negative and unlawful way towards him. That, coupled with the high degree of dangerousness of the offence of aggravated extortion charged against the applicant, led to the conclusion that he had to be detained rather than bailed.

20 . It is unclear whether the applicant appealed against that decision to the Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal, as possible under the relevant rules of procedure.

21 . While in detention, the applicant fell seriously ill, with, in particular, kidney problems. In his interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund, premiered on YouTube on 4 October 2021 (see paragraph 2 and footnote 1 above), he said that (a) while he was in custody, he was repeatedly threatened to transfer his shares in the companies co-owned with his father (see paragraph 3 above) to a straw-man selected by Mr P.P., and that (b) an infection which he had acquired (perhaps by design) in a hospital to which he had been taken for treatment had caused him to develop urosepsis and nearly die, in particular owing to the lack of proper medical treatment.

22 . From the documents submitted by the applicant, it appears that he was treated in various hospitals between (a) 5 September and 16 October 2019, (b) 16 and 23 October 2019, and (c) 30 October and 2 December 2019.

23 . In October or November 2019 the Specialised Criminal Court, apparently in proceedings pursuant to a request by the applicant for his release from detention, asked three medical experts to give their opinion on (a) how ill the applicant was, (b) whether he could be treated while in detention, and (c) whether his health was compatible with his remaining in detention. In their report, filed on 5 November 2019, the experts stated that the applicant suffered from acute kidney insufficiency. He had at first had nephrolithiasis (kidney stones), but that had worsened and had led to a chronic inflammation of his pelvicalyceal system, acute bilateral pyelonephritis and pyelitis, and the onset of urosepsis and a hepatorenal syndrome. Those conditions required complex treatment, including haemodialysis, and possibly reanimation and surgery, and could only be treated in a specialised medical facility. They were life-threatening and incompatible with the applicant’s remaining in detention.

24 . Apparently as a result of that conclusion, in November 2019 the Specialised Criminal Court or the Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal (the applicant gives no information on that) decided to release him on bail. On 5 November 2019 his left kidney was surgically removed. Since the applicant thus remained with one kidney, which is moreover not functioning well, from that point on he has had to get haemodialysis three times a week.

25 . Pursuant to an application by the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office, on 16 July 2019 (the day before the arrests of the applicant, his sister and his mother – see paragraph 16 above), the Specialised Criminal Court authorised a search of the applicant’s home. The following day, 17 July 2019, the police, acting on the basis of that warrant and pursuant to instructions by the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office, searched the applicant’s home and seized thirty-three gold coins and one silver coin, and EUR 5,500 and BGN 25,900 (equivalent to EUR 13,242) in cash. The applicant noted in the record of the search that all those items were his personal property.

26 . The same day the police also searched, without a prior warrant, two safe deposit boxes which the applicant’s mother was renting in a bank, and seized 881 gold coins, a bar of gold and a gold plate, and EUR 550,000 in cash. In his interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund premiered on YouTube on 8 October 2021 (see paragraph 2 and footnote 1 above), the applicant said that EUR 350,000 of the cash belonged to him and the rest to his mother.

27 . The same day the police further searched, again without a prior warrant, a safe deposit box which the applicant was renting in a bank, and seized from it 1,007 gold coins and a gold plate. The applicant noted in the record of the search that all of those were family valuables, and that most had been “left to him by his grandmothers”.

28 . It appears that the following day, 18 July 2019, the Specialised Criminal Court approved ex post facto the searches and seizures in the three safe deposit boxes.

(a) Handing of the seized gold to the applicant’s father

29 . In his interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund premiered on YouTube on 8 July 2020 (see paragraph 2 and footnote 1 above), the applicant’s father said that in the winter of 2019-20, prosecutor D.F.P. (at that time head of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office) had told him that there were invoices showing that he (the applicant’s father) had bought the gold coins seized on 17 and 18 July 2019 from an Austrian gold merchant. In the view of the applicant’s father those invoices were false and had been drawn up by someone in the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office. On an unspecified later date, the head of a security company providing protection for Mr P.P. had called the applicant’s father to tell him to go to the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office and meet Mrs L.P. (Mr P.P.’s wife) there. She had met him in a car in front of the building and had told him that “they had found the documents for the [gold]” and that he was to go and take it, adding that “they” would take care of it and give him “his share” the following day. At about 8 p.m. he had entered into the building and been led to Mr D.F.P.’s office, where he had seen one of the lawyers working with Mr P.P. (see paragraphs 8, 10 and 14 above), another lawyer working with him (see paragraph 38 below), and a prosecutor. The applicant’s father had been shown the gold and had seen that some of the coins were missing. He had signed the requisite papers, the prosecutor had carried the gold down in two boxes and loaded it into Mrs L.P.’s car, and she had driven away. A few days later, on 26 March 2020, one of the lawyers working with Mr P.P. had called the applicant’s father to go again to the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office and get the remaining gold coins.

30 . On 18 February 2020 a prosecutor of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office decided that some of the coins and the gold bar seized from the applicant’s home and the safe deposit boxes rented by him and his mother (see paragraphs 25-27 above) were to be handed to the applicant’s father. The applicant did not submit a copy of that decision, but it was referred to in other decisions submitted by him (see paragraphs 32 and 66 below).

31 . On an unspecified date in March 2020 the same lawyer working with Mr P.P., acting on behalf of the applicant’s father, asked the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office to hand him the remaining coins.

32 . On 26 March 2020 a prosecutor of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office allowed the request and decided that the remainder of the seized coins were to be handed to the applicant’s father. He noted that they had not been returned with the previous decision owing to clerical mistakes, and went on to say that there were no intentions to subject the coins to forensic examination or carry out other investigative steps in relation to them. Moreover, the evidence did not suggest that the coins were the proceeds from, or an instrument for the commission of, the offence charged against the applicant. It appears that the coins were in fact handed to the lawyer.

33 . In his interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund premiered on YouTube on 8 October 2021, the applicant said that he had learned about those events when he had seen the YouTube video in which his father had described them (see paragraph 29 above).

(b) Handing of some of the seized cash to Mr D.L.

34 . In an interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund premiered on YouTube on 31 July 2020 (see footnote 1 above), a Mr D.L. said that on 9 March 2020 an acquaintance of his had told him that prosecutor D.F.P. (see paragraph 29 above) had asked him to go to the restaurant where Mr P.P. was holding his meetings. There, he had met Mr P.P. and two men, one of whom he knew as the former bodyguard of a notorious underground figure. They had told Mr D.L. that everything was happening with the involvement of Mr D.F.P., and that the Chief Prosecutor, Mr I.G., had also been informed. They had then advised Mr D.L. that he had been chosen to seek the return of cash seized in a criminal case because he had ample legal sources of income, and had threatened him that if he did not cooperate, there would be consequences for him and his family. Two days later, on 11 March 2020, the same acquaintance of Mr D.L. had taken him again for a meeting with Mr P.P., but also with a female lawyer, who had drawn up a power of authority whereby Mr D.L. was authorising her to act on his behalf, and a “contract for safekeeping of funds” purporting to show that he had given the applicant, whom he did not know and had never met, EUR 650,000 in cash for safekeeping. Mr D.L. had had to sign those two documents.

35 . On 16 March 2020 the same prosecutor who had taken the decision of 26 March 2020 (see paragraph 32 above) decided that the EUR 550,000 seized from the safe deposit box rented by the applicant’s mother (see paragraph 26 above) were to be handed to Mr D.L. The prosecutor noted that Mr D.L. had enclosed with his request for the return of the cash, lodged on his behalf by a lawyer, a contract showing that in October 2018 he had given the applicant EUR 650,000 for safekeeping. There were no intentions to subject the seized cash to forensic examination or to carry out other investigative steps in relation to it. Moreover, the evidence did not suggest that this cash was the proceeds from, or an instrument for the commission of, the offence charged against the applicant. It had been given to him for safekeeping and bore no relation to the case against him. Mr D.L. had also enclosed with his request evidence of the lawful origin of the money.

36 . In his interview (see paragraph 34 above), Mr D.L. went on to say that on 16 March 2020 he had been told to go to the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office to sign that he had received the cash. When in front of the building, he had seen Mr P.P.’s car and Mrs L.P. (Mr P.P.’s wife) inside it. Two men, probably prosecutors, had shown him into the building, where he had been invited to sign that he had been handed the money, in the presence of the same female lawyer whom he had authorised on 11 March 2020 (see paragraph 34 above). An employee of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office had handed the cash to that lawyer, and Mr D.L. and the lawyer had left the building. The lawyer had got in Mr P.P.’s car, and she and Mrs L.P. had driven away. No record had been given to Mr D.L. to attest that he had been handed the cash; he had just been given a copy of the decision of 16 March 2020 (see paragraph 35 above).

37 . In his interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund premiered on YouTube on 8 October 2021 (see paragraph 2 and footnote 1 above), the applicant said that he had learned about those events when he had seen the video in which Mr D.L. had described them (see paragraph 34 above).

38 . According to the applicant, in February 2020 he and his wife were summoned to and went for a meeting with a lawyer working with Mr P.P., Ms D.K., who threatened the applicant that unless he transferred his shares in the companies co-owned with his father by 10 March 2020, her “bosses” would place him in detention and that, even if dying, he would not be released as he was the first time. When the applicant enquired who were “they”, Ms D.K. stated that “Mr [P.P.] was a very influential man and that during the next seven years, while Mr I.G. was Chief Prosecutor, they [the applicant and his wife] should do as they [we]re told, because if they did not, [the applicant] would remain in prison until he vanished”.

39 . The applicant did not transfer his share to anyone within the deadline given to him by Ms D.K.

40 . On 16 March 2020 the applicant was arrested in his home.

41 . The same day he was charged with conspiring with his accountant in September and October 2017 to embezzle company assets, contrary to Article 321 § 6 of the Criminal Code. At 8.50 p.m. he was placed in prosecutor-ordered detention for up to three days, pending the examination of an application by the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office to the Specialised Criminal Court to place him in pre-trial detention.

42 . The applicant says that when he told the police officers who were keeping him in custody in the police station that he urgently needed to go for haemodialysis, they replied that they were awaiting instructions by the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office. Fearing for his life, the applicant contacted his then lawyer, who told him that he had to pay Mr P.P. EUR 350,000, or he would otherwise not be taken for haemodialysis. The applicant replied that his wife could find a maximum of EUR 200,000, and she later handed that sum in cash to the lawyer to pass on to Mr P.P. In the evening the applicant was taken to a hospital for haemodialysis. He was later taken to another hospital for a check-up, and then to a detention facility.

43 . The day after the applicant’s arrest, 17 March 2020, a prosecutor of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office applied to the Specialised Criminal Court to place him in pre-trial detention. He argued that the available evidence, which consisted mostly of materials taken from the 2019 investigation against the applicant (statements by his father accusing him of embezzling company assets and of entering into unfavourable contracts on behalf of the company, and the report of a January 2019 audit of the company by the National Revenue Agency), was sufficient to found a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence charged against him. Since in the framework of the 2019 criminal proceedings against him he had already been charged with several serious offences allegedly committed over a short period of time, there was a real risk of his resuming his criminal activities unless detained. It had to be borne in mind in that connection that there was evidence that in his capacity as manager of the company co-owned with his father, the applicant had made a number of transactions with a view to syphoning off company assets to a company owned by him alone. There was furthermore a risk that he could destroy evidence.

44 . The Specialised Criminal Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, heard the application to detain the applicant the same day, 17 March 2020, between 1.30 p.m. and 3.01 p.m.

(a) Course of the hearing and oral submissions by the parties

45 . Counsel for the applicant first urged the court to order an expert report on whether the applicant’s health was compatible with his being detained, pointing out that he only had one kidney and required haemodialysis. The court refused the request, noting that the need to rule urgently on the application precluded adjourning the proceedings to obtain an expert report, and that it would make findings about the applicant’s health on the basis of the already available evidence.

46 . The prosecution reiterated nearly verbatim the arguments set out in its application (see paragraph 43 above).

47 . Counsel for the applicant submitted that the charge against him had been formulated in an unclear and blanket way. That in itself was grounds not to detain him. The charge was based on materials obtained in the course of an investigation opened in July 2019, which meant that the prosecution had had ample time to formulate it properly. Moreover, the materials underlying the charge had been taken from the earlier investigation on 13 March 2020, months after that earlier investigation had been opened. That suggested an abuse of process by the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office: they could sever materials from the case in that manner every few months, and use those as the basis of fresh charges and requests to detain the applicant. The alacrity with which that office had acted in the new case also suggested arbitrariness. Moreover, it was unclear how the fresh charge was in reality different from those levelled in the earlier investigation.

48 . Counsel for the applicant went on to argue, with respect to the evidence against the applicant, that the audit report by the National Revenue Agency was the subject of a judicial review challenge, and that it was in any event inconclusive for any criminal-law matters. As for the statement of the applicant’s father, it had been made in the context of a family feud and a dispute between shareholders. It was open to the applicant’s father to bring a civil action against the applicant; the prosecuting authorities had no business meddling in their purely civil-law dispute. The remaining evidence consisted of three invoices, which could not in themselves furnish any proof that the applicant had committed an offence.

49 . Counsel for the applicant also submitted that there was no risk that the applicant would re-offend. The charge against him concerned events which had taken place three years previously. There was no indication that he had committed any offences since then. Any risk of his re-offending was thus illusory. He had no previous convictions or police registrations.

50 . Counsel for the applicant lastly noted that the applicant only had one kidney and his other kidney was not functioning well. If placed in a detention facility, he would thus risk death, especially in the light of the impending pandemic. All of the criminal proceedings against him had been the result of a “commission” to crush him.

(b) Decision of the Specialised Criminal Court

51 . The Specialised Criminal Court gave its decision at the close of the hearing. It decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention.

52 . The court began by noting that the applicant had been charged with a serious wilful offence, and rejected his counsel’s assertion that the charge had not been formulated clearly enough. In its view, at that early stage of the investigation its clarity was sufficient. As for the existence of a reasonable suspicion against the applicant, it held:

“In view of the early stage of the investigation, the analysis of the evidence gathered in the case leads to the conclusion that a reasonable supposition can be made that [the applicant] has committed the offence with which he has been charged. This is supported by the written and oral evidence in the case.

All of the evidence in the case contains information that [the applicant] has taken part in a criminal conspiracy and has engaged in concrete acts of embezzlement[. Such information can be found] in particular in the statement of [his father], as well as the written evidence – the invoices and other documents – which confirm the likelihood that [the applicant] has undertaken such activities.

The overall analysis of the statement of [the applicant’s father] and the remaining written evidence points to a very high degree of likelihood that [the applicant] has on the one hand taken part in the conspiracy, and on the other hand taken part in the alleged offences [of aggravated embezzlement]. In conclusion, the court finds that the reasonable suspicion [required by law] is present ...”

53 . The court went on to say that there was no risk that the applicant would flee, but that there was a risk that he would commit an offence:

“[E]ven though [the applicant] has no previous convictions, the manner of commission and the character of his act ... may lead to the conclusion that there is a real risk of [his] committing another offence. [T]he fact that [his] act, committed in cooperation with others and as part of a complex criminal activity, combined with his concrete participation in the offences charged against him, leads to the unequivocal conclusion that the acts of which [he stands accused] are characterised by a heightened degree of dangerousness of both the offence and of the offender, and that they affect ... the inviolability of private property.

That leads the court to conclude that [the applicant] and his acts are characterised by a heightened degree of dangerousness, which leads to the only possible conclusion, in view of the findings above, namely that there is a real risk that [the applicant] would commit another offence.”

54 . Lastly, the court held the applicant’s health problems could not alter the conclusion that he was to be placed in pre-trial detention, since the urgent character of the proceedings in which that had to be decided did not permit the examination of such issues.

55 . According to the applicant, on 18 March 2020 his lawyer visited him in the hospital where he was getting haemodialysis and told him that, to obtain his release, he had to pay Mr P.P. a further EUR 150,000 (see paragraph 42 above) and transfer his shares in the companies co-owned with his father. He would otherwise be sacrificed and made an example of. Fearing for his life, the applicant agreed. Five days later, on 23 March 2020, the applicant’s wife withdrew that sum from the bank account of a company owned by the applicant and handed it to a man sent by the lawyer in front of the bank.

56 . Meanwhile, on 20 March 2020, the applicant was again taken to the same hospital for haemodialysis. After the procedure, at about 3 p.m., he was taken to a room where he saw guards, the head of the detention facility where he was being kept, many lawyers, and Mrs L.P. (Mr P.P.’s wife), who was allegedly commanding everyone present, including the guards. At about 5 p.m., a notary public also showed up. The applicant’s wife was also present. [2] The applicant signed contracts for the transfer of his shares in the companies which he co-owned with his father and of a company trademark to an alleged straw-man for Mr P.P. (a boxer training in a sports club run by Mrs L.P.). The alleged straw-man was not present; the applicant says that he has never met him. The applicant did not submit copies of those contracts. The process lasted until about 6.30 p.m. or 7 p.m., and after that the applicant was taken back to the detention facility.

57 . According to statements by the applicant’s father in his interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund premiered on YouTube on 2 July 2020 (see paragraph 2 and footnote 1 above), on the same date, 20 March 2020, he had been taken to the same hospital and, through, among other things, threats that the applicant would not be permitted to get haemodialysis, likewise been coerced to transfer his shares in the companies to the same alleged straw-man. The applicant submitted a copy of one such contract. It appears to be between the holding company co-owned by the applicant and his father, represented by the applicant’s father (who is its manager), and purports to sell to a Mr K.H. (the alleged straw-man) all shares in one of the daughter companies at their face value (BGN 5,000, the equivalent of EUR 2,556.46), with that price to be paid in cash upon the conclusion of the contract.

58 . It appears that the alleged straw-man then attempted to have the share transfers registered in the register of companies, as required by law (see paragraph 87 below), but that his requests were refused, and that the transfers have not been registered so far. [3] As a result, on 7 April 2020 Mrs L.P. and Ms D.K. (the lawyer working with Mr P.P. – see paragraph 38 above) urged the applicant’s father to re-sign the share transfers, and proffered fresh threats. As a result, on 12 April 2020 the applicant’s father fled from Bulgaria, and then brought a civil action to have the share transfers which he had already signed set aside as made under duress (see paragraphs 80-86 below). The applicant says that those proceedings are still pending. His father has apparently returned to Bulgaria since then.

59 . It appears that throughout those developments the security company providing protection for Mr P.P. (see paragraph 29 above) was not letting the applicant or his father access the two facilities of the companies in Dupnitsa and Sofia. It is unclear how matters stand at present.

60 . Following an appeal by the applicant against the Specialised Criminal Court’s decision to place him in pre-trial detention (see paragraphs 51-54 above), on 24 March 2020 the Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal apparently varied that decision and decided to place him under house arrest. The applicant did not submit a copy of the decision of the Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal or any other documents relating to the proceedings before that court. According to him, the real reason for his release was that he had transferred his shares and paid the sums requested on behalf of Mr P.P. (see paragraphs 42, 55 and 56 above). He was allegedly told that he would remain under house arrest until the share transfer could be registered in the register of companies (see paragraph 58 above), so as not to be able to prevent that.

61 . According to the applicant, about two and a half months later, in May or June 2020, he was released on bail owing to his health problems. He did not submit copies of the judicial decisions relating to that.

62 . It appears that on 26 June 2020 the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office opened a preliminary investigation into the allegations of the applicant’s father, aired in his interviews with the Anti-Corruption Fund premiered on YouTube two days previously, on 24 June 2020 (see paragraph 2 and footnote 1 above). According to the applicant, no public information has been released about that investigation. Nor is there any information about whether formal criminal proceedings have been opened as a result of it.

63 . On 7 September 2021 the applicant asked the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office to return to him (a) the cash and gold and silver coins seized from his home (see paragraph 25 above), (b) the gold coins, bar and plate seized from the safe deposit box rented by him (see paragraph 27 above), and (c) the gold coins seized from one of the safe deposit boxes rented by his mother (see paragraph 26 above). He argued that the link between those items and the offences with which he had been charged was unclear and that their retention had become excessively lengthy. He relied, inter alia , on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and argued that the continued retention of those items would be a disproportionate interference with his possessions. He also pointed out that under an interpretative decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation (see paragraph 74 below) prosecutors could not order that items seized as evidence be handed to persons other than those from which they had been seized.

64 . On 16 September 2021 two prosecutors of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office refused the request. They noted that in February and March 2020 they had already ordered that all coins whose return the applicant was seeking be handed to the “person entitled” to them (see paragraphs 30 and 32 above), after that person had presented purchase invoices attesting his title to them. The prosecutors went on to note that when receiving the items that person had recorded that the coins were his own property. As for the cash seized from the applicant’s home, it had already been returned to the applicant himself on 17 August 2020, following a request lodged on his behalf by a lawyer. Since all items whose return the applicant was seeking had already been the subject of decisions under Article 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 73 below), his request was to be refused.

65 . The applicant sought judicial review. He argued that by deciding to hand the coins to someone else, the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office had impermissibly taken on the role of a court. As for the cash, it had not in fact been returned to him, and there was no evidence that this had actually happened. There was evidence that prosecutors had committed the offences of embezzlement and handling stolen property. The applicant sought court orders that (a) the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office cause the person to whom it had handed the coins to deliver them up, so that they could in turn be returned to the applicant, and that (b) the cash be returned to him unless the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office could produce documents attesting that this had already happened.

66 . In a final decision 15 October 2021, the Specialised Criminal Court upheld the prosecutors’ decision. It noted that there had been three earlier decisions by prosecutors in relation to the items whose return the applicant was seeking (see paragraphs 30, 32 and 64 above). By Article 111 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a prosecutor’s refusal to return seized items could be judicially reviewed only if it was based on the grounds set out in Article 111 § 2 (see paragraph 73 below), whereas the refusal at bar had been for a different reason: that the items had already been returned with earlier decisions. The court could not review those earlier decisions, since by Article 111 § 3 only a refusal to return items was amenable to review. The logic underlying the relevant provisions, including Article 113 of the Code (see paragraph 74 below), was that the criminal courts had no competence to decide civil-law disputes relating to evidence. If the applicant claimed title to the items handed to other persons, he had to submit that claim for adjudication to the civil courts. As for the cash whose return to him had already been ordered on 17 August 2020, he had to approach the authorities tasked with the safekeeping of evidence to obtain it.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

67 . By section 2(1)(1) and (1)(2) of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988, as worded since December 2012, the State is liable for damage caused to individuals by the investigating or prosecuting authorities or the courts, in cases of, inter alia , (a) deprivation of liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, and (b) a breach of rights protected under Article 5 §§ 2 to 4 of the Convention. More details about these provisions and their application by the Bulgarian courts can be found in Tsonev v. Bulgaria ((dec.), no. 9662/13, §§ 29-40, 30 May 2017) and Banevi v. Bulgaria (no. 25658/19, §§ 60-63, 12 October 2021).

68 . By section 4 of the Act, compensation must cover all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage directly and proximately resulting from the wrongful act.

69 . Paragraph 1 of the concluding provisions of the Act says that all points not specifically provided for in it are governed by general civil law. By section 110 of the Obligations of Contracts Act 1950, which thus applies to claims under the 1988 Act (see, for instance, реш. № 1260 от 19.09.2005 г. по гр. д. № 1838/2003 г., ВКС, IV г. о. , and реш. № 638 от 02.10.2009 г. по гр. д. № 456/2008 г., ВКС, III г. о. ), the normal limitation period for civil claims is five years.

70 . Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that items which have been intended for use or have been used in the commission of an offence, items which bear traces of an offence or have been the object of an offence, and items which may serve to elucidate the facts of a criminal case are to be obtained as evidence.

71 . The general rule is that real evidence is to be enclosed with the case file (Article 110 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), and that whenever the case is transferred from one authority to another, the evidence is to be moved along with it (Article 110 § 3). Evidence consisting of cash or other valuables is, however, to be kept in a commercial bank servicing the State budget or the Bulgarian National Bank (Article 110 § 5).

72 . In a 2009 criminal case, a police investigator who had failed to comply with his duties under Article 110 § 5 of the Code in relation to seized cash was convicted of dereliction of duty and ordered to pay the person from whom the cash had been seized damages equalling the value of that cash (see реш. № 67 от 28.09.2009 г. н. о. х. д. № 56/2009 г., ВАпС , upheld by реш. № 5 от 28.01.2010 г. по н. д. № 645/2009 г., ВКС, III н. о. ). In 2014, a bank was ordered to pay the prosecuting authorities damages equivalent to the value of cash seized as evidence, deposited in a vault operated by that bank and stolen from there (see реш. № 129 от 21.05.2014 г. по в. т. д. № 28/2014 г., ВтАС , appeal on points of law not admitted with опр. № 674 от 03.08.2015 г. по т. д. № 3173/2014 г., ВКС, I т. о. ).

73 . By Article 111 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, real evidence obtained by the authorities is to be retained until the end of the proceedings. Items seized as evidence may, however, be returned to the “persons entitled to them, from whom they have been seized” before the end of the proceedings if that would not interfere with fact-finding and if the items are not the object of an administrative offence; the decision whether to do so is for the prosecutor in charge of the case (Article 111 § 2). That prosecutor must respond to any such request within three days. His or her refusal to return the items is amenable to judicial review by the respective first-instance court, at the instance of the “entitled person”. The court, sitting in a single-judge formation and dealing with the claim on the papers, must rule within three days. Its decision is final (Article 111 § 3).

74 . By Article 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if a dispute arises in relation to items seized as evidence, and that dispute falls for examination in proceedings governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, the items are to be retained until the civil court’s decision becomes final. In an interpretative decision given in November 2014 ( тълк. реш. № 2 от 12.11.2014 г. по тълк. д. № 2/2014 г., ВКС, ОСНК ) the Supreme Court of Cassation held that the prosecutor must retain disputed items with reference to Article 113 when faced with a request for their return even if the dispute has not already been submitted to the civil courts. The existence of conflicting claims by two or more persons is sufficient, and it is irrelevant whether the prosecutor is aware of those claims because they have been submitted to him or her or because he or she has learned about them otherwise. Such claims may concern the right to property over the items or other rights to them, such as those arising from a pledge.

75 . In the last decade, the Bulgarian civil courts have dealt with a number of claims for damages against the prosecuting authorities under section 49 of the Obligations and Contracts Act 1950 – the general provision of Bulgarian tort law governing vicarious liability – relating to the allegedly unjustified retention of items as evidence in criminal proceedings. In those cases, the courts examined whether the items had been really necessary for the purposes of the criminal proceedings in relation to which they had been seized, and whether those proceedings had lasted too long (see, for instance, реш. â„– 465 от 20.12.2011 г. по гр. д. â„– 1794/2010 г., ВКС, IV г. о. ; реш. â„– 425 от 07.03.2013 г. по в. гр. д. â„– 4636/2012 г., САС , appeal on points of law not admitted with опр. â„– 191 от 06.02.2014 г. по гр. д. â„– 4706/2013 г., ВКС, IV г. о. ; реш. â„– 8620 от 28.11.2016 г. по в. гр. д. â„– 7650/2016 г., СГС , appeal on points of law not admitted with опр. â„– 1114 от 28.11.2017 г. по гр. д. â„– 2107/2017 г., ВКС, IV г. о. ; реш. â„– 64 от 07.06.2019 г. по в. гр. д. â„– 161/2019 г., ВнАС , appeal on points of law not admitted with опр. â„– 246 от 08.04.2020 г. по гр. д. â„– 3574/2019 г., ВКС, III г. о. ; реш. â„– 916 от 30.10.2019 г. по гр. д. â„– 1117/2019 г., ОС ‑ Бургас , appeal on points of law not admitted with опр. â„– 509 от 03.07.2020 г. по гр. д. â„– 803/2020 г., ВКС, IV г. о. ; and реш. â„– 1589 от 27.02.2020 г. по в. гр. д. â„– 12203/2019 г., СГС , appeal on points of law not admitted with опр. â„– 31 от 22.01.2021 г. по гр. д. â„– 2861/2020 г., ВКС, III г. о. ).

76 . In recent years the courts have also allowed claims for damages against the prosecuting authorities under section 49 relating to failures to return items seized as evidence to the persons from whom they had been seized (see реш. № 137 от 18.02.2019 г. по гр. д. № 2957/2017 г., ВКС, III г. о. , and реш. № 136 от 27.06.2019 г. по гр. д. № 501/2019 г., ВКС, III г. о. ), for instance because the items had been mislaid owing to the prosecuting authorities’ failure to ensure that they be properly kept (see реш. № 11853 от 12.08.2020 г., по в. гр. д. № 117/2020 г. САС , appeal on points of law not admitted with опр. № 384 от 13.05.2021 г. по гр. д. № 4162/2020 г., ВКС, III г. о. ), or because the prosecuting authorities had, in excess of their powers, decided to return the items to other persons asserting rights to them (see paragraph 74 above, реш. № 1189 от 17.10.2006 г. по гр. д. № 1908/2005 г., ВКС, IV-А г. о. , and реш. № 70 от 02.08.2021 г. по гр. д. № 2401/2020 г., ВКС, IV г. о. ).

77 . The courts have furthermore recently held that the prosecuting authorities can be liable in damages under section 49 for physical damage to items retained as evidence (see реш. № 76 от 16.05.2017 г. по гр. д. № 2926/2016 г., ВКС, IV г. о. ; реш. № 1458 от 03.07.2020 г., по в. гр. д. № 4773/2019 г., САС , appeal on points of law not admitted with опр. № 60659 от 14.10.2021 г. по гр. д. № 1274/2021 г., ВКС, IV г. о. , and реш. № 737 от 15.04.2021 г., по гр. д. № 3220/2020 г. ОС-Варна , appeal on points of law not admitted with опр. № 60747 от 18.11.2021 г. по гр. д. № 2394/2021 г., ВКС, IV г. о. ).

78 . In 2017 a joint panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court clarified that a claim for damages relating to an alleged failure by the investigating authorities to return cash retained as evidence in criminal proceedings fell to be examined under the relevant provisions of the 1950 Act. It followed that the claim was to be examined by the civil rather than the administrative courts (see опр. № 20 от 15.03.2017 г. по адм. д. № 69/2016 г., ВКС и ВАС, см. петчл. с-в ). Based on that ruling, in a recent case the Burgas Administrative Court sent a claim for damages relating to an alleged failure of the prosecuting authorities to return cash seized and retained as evidence to the Burgas District Court (see опр. № 1411 от 28.07.2020 г. по адм. д. № 1500/2020 г., АдмС-Бургас ).

79 . The limitation period for bringing a claim under section 49 is five years (section 110 of the same Act – see paragraph 69 above).

80 . By sections 27 and 30 of the Obligations and Contracts Act 1950, duress is grounds to set aside a contract. Section 30 defines duress as pressure, by the other party to the contract or by a third party, which can cause the person entering into the contract to feel well-founded fear. Anything paid or given pursuant to a contract which has been set aside is subject to restitution (section 34 of the same Act).

81 . The Bulgarian courts have had to deal with claims under those provisions relating to the transfer of shares in limited liability companies (see опр. № 978 от 30.10.2012 г. по ч. т. д. № 250/2012 г., ВКС, II т. о. , and реш. № 260691 от 02.02.2021 г. по в. гр. д. № 12461/2009 г., СГС , appeal on points of law pending: т. д. № 1359/2021 г., ВКС, I т. о. ).

82 . According to the Supreme Court of Cassation’s case-law, the fear referred to in section 30 of the 1950 Act can concern the life, health, honour or pecuniary interests of either the party to the contract seeking to set it aside or of a person close to that party, and the means used to cause that fear can vary, but must be of a nature to actually cause it (see реш. № 38 от 12.02.2009 г. по гр. д. № 532/2008 г., ВКС, II г. о. ). The threat may relate to acts which are not unlawful in themselves (see реш. № 525 от 10.06.2009 г. по гр. д. № 1502/2008 г., ВКС, III г. о. ). The means used to cause the fear can be psychological or physical, or a combination of those. The assessment of whether the threats have caused a well-founded fear must be concrete, taking into account, among other things, the characteristics and the situation of the person alleged to have been threatened (see реш. № 222 от 07.12.2017 г. по гр. д. № 4594/2016 г., ВКС, IV г. о. ). For instance, the threats may be of disciplinary action by an employer (see реш. № 2378 от 21.04.2020 г. по в. гр. д. № 8449/2019 г., СГС , appeal on points of law not admitted with опр. № 60431 от 15.07.2021 г. по т. д. № 1978/2020 г., ВКС, II т. о. ), or of the non-payment of a debt, or of taking various types of legal action (see реш. № 7680 от 03.06.2016 г. по гр. д. № 9525/2013 г., СРС , unclear whether final, and реш. № 399083 от 03.05.2018 г. по гр. д. № 15375/2017 г., СРС , upheld on different grounds by реш. № 5215 от 10.07.2019 г. по в. гр. д. № 10854/2018 г., СГС , final). But the Supreme Court of Cassation has also held that a threat of complaining to the competent authorities, since it concerns the exercise of a constitutional right, cannot in itself cause a well-founded fear within the meaning of section 30 of the 1950 Act, unless the complaint in question would amount to an abuse of process (see реш. № 136 от 30.10.2020 г. по гр. д. № 4746/2019 г., ВКС, III г. о. ).

83 . Even if the identity of the third party who has proffered the threat is not established, that is not decisive for the well-foundedness of the claim (see реш. № 668 от 05.04.2013 г. по в. гр. д. № 3388/2012 г., САС , appeal on points of law not admitted with опр. № 1329 от 27.12.2013 г. по гр. д. № 5034/2013 г., ВКС, III г. о. ).

84 . The evidence of a single witness about the proffered threats, combined with evidence of the unusual way in which the contract has been concluded, can be sufficient to make out a claim under section 30 of the 1950 Act (see реш. № 125 от 12.07.2013 г. по т. д. № 910/2012 г., ВКС, II т. о. ).

85 . If the threats alleged to have caused the fear constitute a criminal offence, the civil court hearing the action to set aside the contract must stay the proceedings pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings opened in relation to those threats (see опр. № 978 от 30.10.2012 г. по ч. т. д. № 250/2012 г., ВКС, II т. о. and реш. № 20 от 20.05.2021 г. по гр. д. № 1372/2020 г., ВКС, IV г. о. ).

86 . By section 33(2) of the 1950 Act, the right to set aside a contract made under duress lapses after three years, which begin to run when the duress has ceased or when the contract has been made, as the case may be.

87 . By section 129(2) of the Commerce Act 1991, shares in a limited liability company are transferred by way of a notarised contract which must be entered in the register of companies. There is conflicting case-law on whether without registration the transfer is invalid or simply unopposable to third parties (see реш. № 732 от 24.08.2005 г. по т. д. № 819/2004 г., ВКС, II т. о. ; реш. № 1061 от 21.11.2005 г. по т. д. № 355/2005 г., ВКС, II т. о. ; and реш. № 72 от 18.03.2008 г. по т. д. № 725/2007 г., ВКС, II т. о. , which hold that the transfer is incomplete without registration, and реш. № 886 от 28.02.2006 г. по т. д. № 159/2005 г., ВКС, II т. о. ; реш. № 1050 от 17.07.2009 г. по т. д. № 215/2009 г., САС , and опр. № 11701 от 17.07.2020 г. по в. ч. гр. д. № 1974/2020 г., САС , which hold that registration is not an element of the validity of the transfer but simply required to make it opposable to third parties).

COMPLAINTS

88 . The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that:

(a) the seizure of the cash and the gold from his home and the safe deposit boxes rented by him and his mother, and the subsequent handing of those items to other people were arbitrary;

(b) he was coerced to transfer his shares in his and his father’s companies by being kept in detention and threatened that he would be denied access to healthcare despite having a life-threatening medical condition.

89 . The applicant further complains under Article 18 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that:

(a) the cash and the gold were seized and retained with a view to being misappropriated by Mr P.P. and his associates; and

(b) he was kept in detention and threatened that he would be denied access to healthcare despite having a life-threatening medical condition with a view to being coerced to transfer his shares in the companies.

90 . The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 18 of the Convention that neither the prosecuting authorities nor the police investigated the allegations of misuse of power properly in his case.

91 . The applicant additionally complains under Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of:

(a) the seizure and subsequent loss of the seized cash and gold; and

(b) his being kept in detention without healthcare with a view to being coerced to transfer his shares in the companies.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In respect of the cash and valuables seized in the applicant’s home and the safe deposit boxes rented by him and his mother:

1.1. Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the seizure of those items and the failure to return them to him? In particular, has he attempted to bring a claim for damages against the prosecuting authorities in relation to that under section 49 of the Obligations and Contracts Act 1950?

1.2. Could all those items be regarded as possessions of the applicant within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Did the seizure and subsequent failure to return those items to him amount to an interference with his possessions, within the meaning of that provision? If so, was that interference lawful and justified?

1.3. Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 18 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 relating to the seizure of those items and the subsequent failure to return them to him? In particular, has he tried to raise his allegation that this was done for an ulterior purpose in a claim against the prosecuting authorities under section 49 of the Obligations and Contracts Act 1950?

1.4. Did the alleged interference with the applicant’s possessions relating to those items pursue solely or chiefly a purpose not prescribed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in breach of Article 18 of the Convention?

2. In respect of the transfer of the applicant’s shares in the companies co ‑ owned with his father:

2.1. Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he was coerced to make that transfer by being kept in detention and threatened that he would be denied healthcare? In particular, has he attempted to bring:

(a) a claim for damages under section 2(1)(1) and (1)(2) of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 in respect of his detention between 16 and 24 March 2020; and

(b) a claim under sections 27 and 30 of the 1950 Act to have the contracts whereby he transferred those shares set aside as made under duress?

2.2. Did the applicant’s detention – through which the prosecutors and judges allegedly involved in the scheme against him are said to have enabled him to be subject to coercion to force him to transfer his shares – amount to an interference with his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference lawful and justified?

2.3. Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 18 of the Convention (which, in view of the precise manner in which the State authorities are alleged to have acted in pursuit of their unavowed purpose, is to be taken together with Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 and of the Convention rather than with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) that he was kept in detention between 16 and 24 March 2020 with a view to being coerced to make that transfer? In particular, has he attempted to raise his allegations in that respect in a claim under section 2(1)(1) and (1)(2) of the 1988 Act?

2.4. Was the applicant detained between 16 and 24 March 2020 solely or chiefly for a purpose not prescribed by Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, in breach of Article 18 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicant have effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 18 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The parties are requested to submit all documents relating to (a) the 2019 and 2020 criminal proceedings against the applicant; (b) the applicant’s detention in 2019 and in March 2020; (c) the seizure, retention and return of the cash and valuables found in the applicant’s home and in the safe deposit boxes rented by him and his mother; and (d) the share transfers effected by the applicant on 20 March 2020 and the subsequent attempts to have those registered in the register of companies.

[1] The videos consisted mainly of interviews with the applicant and his wife, the applicant’s father, and a Mr D.L. They were authored by a non-governmental organisation, the Anti ‑ Corruption Fund, and the applicant relied on them in his application.

[2] In her interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund premiered on YouTube on 8 October 2021 (see paragraph 2 and footnote 1 above), the applicant’s wife said that about thirty people had been present in that room and the corridor in front of it.

[3] In his interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund premiered on YouTube on 8 October 2021 (see paragraph 2 footnote 1 above), the applicant said that his lawyer had involved him without his knowledge in a legal challenge against those refusals, but that he had withdrawn that legal challenge and the proceedings had been discontinued.