CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 août 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 September 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 27026/16 TIMOTEI MOTORS EOOD against Bulgaria lodged on 4 May 2016 communicated on 22 August 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the forfeiture of a vehicle belonging to the applicant company in the context of criminal proceedings against a third party. The applicant company submits that it had no opportunity under domestic law to challenge effectively the forfeiture of its property resulting from criminal proceedings to which it was not a party. The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and together with Article 13 of the Convention, as well as under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the forfeiture of the vehicle 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 to the Convention? If so, was the applicant company 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 Ünsped Paket Servisi SaN. Ve TiC. A.Ş. v. Bulgaria , no.   3503/08, §§   46-47, 13   October 2015)?   2.     Did the applicant company have effective access to a court, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, to challenge the impugned forfeiture?   3.     Did the applicant company have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, to submit the above complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?