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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 30 May 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 53285/15 Maria Stoyanova ZAGORSKA against Bulgaria lodged on 21 October 2015 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 2011 the applicant was convicted for embezzlement, which triggered forfeiture proceedings against her. After concluding that she had had a rather small proven income, the domestic courts, in a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 25 June 2015, forfeited as proceeds of crime 108,067 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of 55,300 euros (EUR), available on bank accounts of the applicant. The applicant complains of the forfeiture, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. The applicant further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of having been ordered to pay, at different stages of the judicial proceedings, BGN 3,841 (EUR 1,965) in court fees. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the forfeiture of the applicant’s 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 applicant was 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 applicant, or fundamentally interfere with her financial situation?