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 } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF0E7BF98 { width:106.04%; border-collapse:collapse } .s77B0634B { width:7.32%; 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 } .s390CB55C { width:30.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD370BC15 { width:21.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37B231 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2D94AE9F { width:20.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCF8EBB52 { width:7.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD256A34E { width:30.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE5EED0ED { width:21.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s134F8E45 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s27D0360D { width:20.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 30 May 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 6430/13 Petar Krastev MARVAKOV and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 16 January 2013 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 2006 the first applicant was convicted for drug trafficking and participation in an organised criminal group, which triggered forfeiture proceedings against him and the remaining applicants – his wife and two companies controlled by him. The proceedings ended on 17 July 2012 with a final decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation. The national courts ordered the forfeiture of immoveable properties and other assets, 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 section   4(1) of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act. After the judgment of the first-instance court, the applicants paid 16,784 Bulgarian levs (the equivalent of 8,585 euros) in court fees in order to have their appeal against it 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? Appendix List of Applicants No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/ registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Petar Krastev MARVAKOV   - died in 2017, Svetla Ivanova Marvakova wishes to continue the proceedings in his stead. 1957 Bulgarian Plovdiv 2. Svetla Ivanova MARVAKOVA 1972 Bulgarian Plovdiv 3. PALDIN COMPANY EOOD   Bulgarian Plovdiv 4. POMFRIT COMPANY OOD   Bulgarian Plovdiv