CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC1A87EE6 { width:109.9%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB0CB7F3F { width:7.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s660E7656 { width:29.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF39BD3B6 { width:19.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s404E38D { width:21.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB3309F68 { width:22.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB4371AF0 { width:7.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s56192C94 { width:29.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s79FC6FD3 { width:19.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD8BB8D59 { width:21.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF83E136D { width:22.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 30 May 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 57002/11 Atanas Angelov MANDEV and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 24 August 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 extortion, which triggered forfeiture proceedings against him and the remaining applicants (his wife and parents). The proceedings ended on 25 February 2011. The national courts ordered the forfeiture of immoveable properties and sums of money, considering them proceeds of crime on the basis of the presumption contained in section 4(1) of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act, after finding that the applicants had not proven sufficient lawful income. At different stages of the proceedings, the applicants were ordered to pay court fees in the total amount of 25,256 Bulgarian levs (the equivalent of 12,920 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? Appendix List of Applicants No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Atanas Angelov MANDEV 1968 Bulgarian Sliven 2. Angel Ivanov MANDEV 1940 Bulgarian Sliven 3. Maria Atanasova MANDEVA 1943 Bulgarian Sliven 4. Vanya Mihaylova MANDEVA 1970 Bulgarian Sliven