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 } .s135214E8 { width:264pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3BCCA86F { width:107.96%; border-collapse:collapse } .s1B5E5BBA { width:7.2%; 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 } .sBDCAD824 { width:32.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7F3E50DB { width:17.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3979AC19 { width:19.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE9E2AFE2 { width:23.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD604ECD3 { width:7.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s109991DE { width:32.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8977DE18 { width:17.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s126F01E6 { width:19.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6A1D1FD6 { width:23.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 30 May 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 67333/13 Asen Kirilov DIMOV and Daniela Boyanova DIMOVA against Bulgaria lodged on 11 October 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 2007 the first applicant was convicted for smuggling which triggered forfeiture proceedings against him and his wife (the second applicant). The domestic courts, in a final decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 12 April 2013, ordered the forfeiture of numerous assets, among which immoveable properties, vehicles and shares in companies. They found that the applicants had not established sufficient lawful income and that the fact that the first applicant had been convicted for smuggling justified the conclusion that their assets were the proceeds of crime. After the judgment of the first-instance court, the applicants paid 6,747 Bulgarian levs (the equivalent of 3,450 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 Nationality Place of residence 1. Asen Kirilov DIMOV 1978 Bulgarian Pernik 2. Daniela Boyanova DIMOVA 1978 Bulgarian Pernik