CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juillet 2023

.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 } Published on 24 July 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 11589/16 Ivan Borisov SOLAKOV against Bulgaria lodged on 20 February 2016 communicated on 7 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the forfeiture of assets of the applicant considered to be the proceeds of crime – a complaint of the type examined in Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, 13 July 2021). The application concerns in addition access to a court related to the amount of court fees. In 2002 the applicant was convicted for having organised unlawful gambling. Later on the conviction triggered forfeiture proceedings against him and his wife, and in a judgment of 12 February 2012 the Burgas Regional Court ordered the forfeiture of assets of the defendants considered to be worth 5,391,990 Bulgarian levs (BGN), equivalent of 2,758,000 euros (EUR). The assets were considered proceeds of crime because of the applicant’s criminal conviction, and seeing that he had not proved sufficient lawful income to rebut the statutory presumption on their criminal provenance. The applicant appealed against the Burgas Regional Court’s judgment, but his appeal was not examined, since he failed to pay the requisite court fee, amounting to BGN 74,879 (EUR 38,301). The applicant’s assets had been frozen at the start of the forfeiture proceedings, and even though some of his bank accounts were unfrozen to allow him to pay the fee, he remained unable to do so. His application to be exempted from the obligation to pay court fees was rejected as well. The final decision putting an end to the proceedings was taken on 21 August 2015. The applicant complains, relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that the forfeiture of his assets was unjustified, in particular because they had not been shown to be the proceeds of crime. He complains in addition under Article 6 § 1 of having been unfairly denied access to a court of appeal. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the forfeiture of the applicant’s assets in compliance with Article   1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, were these assets reasonably shown to have been the proceeds of crime (see Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos.   50705/11 and 6 others, 13 July 2021)? 2.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, seeing in particular the requirement for him to pay a high court fee to ensure the examination of his case on appeal?