CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 18 November 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 67437/17 TRAFIK OIL - 1 EOOD against Bulgaria lodged on 5 September 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a complaint about the unjustified forfeiture of fuel belonging to the applicant company in administrative ‑ penal proceedings against its business partner. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the forfeiture by the authorities of the goods belonging to the applicant company amount to an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? Was the applicant made to bear an excessive individual burden as a result of this measure? In particular, was there any possibility that the applicant company could effectively challenge the forfeiture (see, Microintelect OOD v. Bulgaria , no.   34129/03, §§ 44-50, 4 March 2014)?   2.     Did the applicant company have effective access to a court, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to challenge the forfeiture?