CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 décembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 January 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 10223/18 Dragomir Tanev MANOLOV against Bulgaria lodged on 21 February 2018 communicated on 6 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Sofia City Court, which dealt with the applicant’s case for damages, was not impartial because the Sofia City Court itself was one of the defendants in the proceedings. In 2008, in the course of criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant, several of his personal belongings were seized and impounded as evidence. After his conviction in 2012, the Sofia Court of Appeal ordered the impounded belongings to be returned to the applicant with the exception of a computer which was considered instrument of the criminal offence and a pistol, for the use of which he did not possess a licence. The Sofia City Court returned some of the belongings to the applicant and informed him that the remainder had never been handed over to it by the Directorate of Interior. The applicant lodged a claim for damages jointly against the Sofia City Court and the Sofia Court of Appeal for the missing items. In a final judgment of 21 August 2017, the Sofia City Court upheld the lower court’s judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim, without expressly addressing his arguments for lack of impartiality.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the Sofia City Court, which has dealt with the applicant’s case for damages, impartial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, considering that the Sofia City Court itself was one of the defendants in the proceedings (see Mihalkov v. Bulgaria , no. 67719/01, § 47, 10 April 2008)?