CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 30 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s953FCA47 { margin-top:8pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sB85C84E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s833B1EA7 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s19606355 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:68.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sD46FFE5D { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4859184F { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD5295FC2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s554D0A64 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s72A8FB50 { width:5.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s57F719EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:102.05pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s8E0B8B88 { width:8.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF53451E7 { width:5.9pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB12058F2 { width:8.11pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF5711BAC { width:6.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s91A62531 { width:11.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD608F18A { width:9.22pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s35B94E0 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sBB31CFFC { width:3.67pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA98EF83E { width:3.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s25D4CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s690573B7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s96E9055E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:68.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC0098EF4 { width:5.1pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC5C13DB4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:68.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD437FBCA { width:5.25pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s29A5A94F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:20.17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:5.33pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s327CD7AC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:23.51pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5C494981 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s871A718A { width:136.42pt; display:inline-block } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; display:inline-block } .s766CA6F { width:155.43pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 53050/21)                       DECISION       STRASBOURG 30 January 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS THE FACTS A.   Background 1.   Companies owned by the applicant and his father 2.   Conflict between the applicant and his father 3.   The applicant’s taking possession of the company factory B.   Contact with Mr P.P. and resulting proceedings against the applicant C.   First detention of the applicant 1.   Arrest and initial charges 2.   Proceedings before the Specialised Criminal Court 3.   Proceedings before the Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal 4.   The applicant’s medical problems in detention and his release (a)   The applicant’s medical problems (b)   First request for release (c)   Second request for release and release of the applicant D.   Seized cash and valuables 1.   Seizure of those items (a)   Search-warrant applications and search warrants (b)   Searches and seizures carried out on 17 and 18 July 2019 2.   Handing over of the seized coins and cash to third parties (a)   Handing over of the seized gold to the applicant’s father (i)   As related to the Anti-Corruption Fund (ii)   As emerging from the written evidence (b)   Handing of some of the seized cash to Mr D.L. (i)   As related to the Anti-Corruption Fund (ii)   As emerging from the written evidence E.   Second detention of the applicant and his ensuing house arrest 1.   Meeting in February 2020 2.   Arrest of the applicant on 16 March 2020 and fresh charge 3.   Application to place the applicant in pre-trial detention 4.   Hearing of that application by the Specialised Criminal Court (a)   Course of the hearing and submissions by the parties (b)   Decision of the Specialised Criminal Court 5.   Visit by the applicant’s lawyer in the hospital on 18 March 2020 6.   Share transfer on 20 or 23 March 2020 7.   Placement under house arrest and subsequent release (a)   Proceedings in the Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal (i)   Appeals on behalf of the applicant (ii)   Hearing of those appeals (b)   The applicant’s release on bail F.   Investigation of the handing of seized items to the applicant’s father G.   Requests for the return of the seized cash and valuables 1.   Request made in the summer of 2020 2.   Request made in September 2021 H.   Progress of the criminal proceedings against the applicant I.   Ensuing civil proceedings brought by the applicant 1.   Proceedings for a declaration that the share transfer was void 2.   Recent claims for damages against the prosecuting authorities (a)   Claim relating to the seized items (b)   Claims relating to the applicant’s detention (c)   Claim by for breaches of European Union law J.   In-house report by the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK A.   Retention and return of real evidence in criminal proceedings 1.   Items which can be seized as evidence 2.   Storage of cash and valuables seized and retained as evidence 3.   Retention and return of items seized as evidence B.   Liability of the authorities for measures taken in criminal cases 1.   Liability for breaches of Article 5 §§ 1 to 4 of the Convention 2.   Liability for the seizure or retention of items as evidence C.   Remission of court fees and costs COMPLAINTS THE LAW A.   Complaints relating to the seized items 1.   The parties’ submissions on the admissibility of the complaints (a)   The Government (b)   The applicant 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   Compatibility ratione materiae (b)   Exhaustion of domestic remedies (i)   Remedy tried by the applicant and remedy cited by the Government (ii)   Adequate redress (iii)   Availability and prospect of success (iv)   Examination of the substance of the complaints (v)   Conclusion (vi)   Further remedies and objection that the complaints are out of time B.   Complaints relating to the transfer of the applicant’s shares 1.   The parties’ submissions on the admissibility of the complaints (a)   The Government (b)   The applicant 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   Adequate redress (b)   Availability and prospect of success (c)   Examination of the substance of the complaints (d)   Conclusion (e)   Further remedies and objection that the complaints are out of time C.   Complaints under Article 13 of the Convention 1.   The parties’ submissions on the admissibility of the complaint 2.   The Court’s assessment THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 53050/21 Yavor Iliev ZLATANOV against Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on   30   January 2024 as a Chamber composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova , President ,   Yonko Grozev,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir , judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the above application lodged on 27 October 2021; and the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Yavor Iliev Zlatanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Sofia. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. 2.     The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms M. Kotseva and Ms M. Dimitrova of the Ministry of Justice. 3 .     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as appearing on the basis of the material submitted and relied upon by them, including six videos relating to the case (released on YouTube on 24 June, 2 and 31 July and 20 August 2020, and 4 and 8 October 2021), [1] as well as publicly available material, may be summarised as follows. Background Companies owned by the applicant and his father 4 .     Since the 1990s the applicant’s father has owned a group of companies whose business is the production of lifts. The companies were structured as follows: there was a holding company – Izamet 1991 OOD – which fully owned four or five single-member limited liability companies, with the applicant’s father owning all the shares in that holding company. In 2002 he transferred 40% of those shares to the applicant, retaining the remaining 60% for himself. The applicant and his father were at one time joint managers of both the holding company and its subsidiaries. Conflict between the applicant and his father 5 .     In 2017 (or even earlier) the applicant and his father fell out. At that time the applicant’s father had already fallen out with his wife – the applicant’s mother – with whom he had not lived, apparently, since 1997, as well as with his daughter – the applicant’s sister – and her husband. In late 2017 the applicant, his mother and his sister applied to the Sofia City Court to place the applicant’s father under guardianship, citing unusual behaviour on his part. In June 2018 that court refused the application, finding no evidence that the applicant’s father suffered from a mental disability or was unable to take care of his affairs. In December 2018 the Sofia Court of Appeal upheld that decision. 6 .     In two complaints which he lodged with the Sofia district prosecutor’s office in September 2017, the applicant’s father alleged that since February 2017 the applicant had been preventing him from accessing the office of their companies. He also alleged that the applicant had been improperly disposing of company assets. He further claimed that his daughter (the applicant’s sister) and her husband had been attempting to extort money from him with threats that he would be prosecuted and “destroyed”. 7 .     According to the applicant, the prosecuting authorities took no tangible steps in relation to those complaints. It appears that they opened criminal proceedings and took evidence, but did not proceed to charge anyone or to take any coercive measures in connection with the proceedings. The applicant’s taking possession of the company factory 8 .     On 25 June 2019 the applicant, assisted by an enforcement agent and the police, took possession of a factory in Dupnitsa owned by his and his father’s companies (see paragraph 4 above). The applicant did so on the basis of a writ of execution that was apparently issued on the basis of a preliminary contract for the sale of the factory to another company, of which he is alleged to be the beneficial owner – K Korekshan EOOD. Contact with Mr P.P. and resulting proceedings against the applicant 9 .     In reaction to the events at the factory, the applicant’s father contacted Mr P.P., a lawyer in private practice who had previously been the head of the investigation department of the Sofia City prosecutor’s office in 2013-15 and is alleged by the applicant to have been implicated in various corrupt schemes. On 27 June 2019 the applicant’s father and Mr P.P. met to discuss possible ways of acting against the applicant. Mr P.P. stated that he would “solve [the] problem” and directed the applicant’s father to contact two other lawyers working with him. 10 .     The following day, 28 June 2019, the Chief Prosecutor ordered that three files which had been opened in response to the earlier complaints by the applicant’s father (see paragraph 6 above) be joined and sent to the National Investigation Service. 11 .     The two lawyers working with Mr P.P. drew up a fresh complaint which on 3 July 2019 they lodged with the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office on behalf of the applicant’s father. It alleged that the applicant, his mother, his sister and her husband, and the former and current managers of K   Korekshan EOOD (see paragraph 8 above), as well as several other people, had been conspiring since 2017 to deprive the applicant’s father of his companies through, inter alia , blackmail and money laundering. 12 .     The complaint in particular reiterated the allegations that the applicant had been preventing his father from accessing the office of the jointly owned companies (see paragraph 6 above). It further alleged, with regard to the applicant, that he had embezzled money belonging to his father and had siphoned off assets belonging to Izamet 1991 OOD. 13 .     On the same day, 3 July 2019, the complaint was allocated at random to Mr D.D., a prosecutor of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office; however, the (then) head of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office, Mr D.F.P., specifically chose a second prosecutor, Mr G.M., to also work on the case. The following day, 4 July 2019, that second prosecutor opened a criminal investigation on the basis of the allegations of the applicant’s father. According to the applicant, the proceedings were opened with such alacrity because those public prosecutors were acting in concert with Mr P.P. 14 .     On the same day, 4 July 2019, an investigator attached to the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office and a police officer interviewed the applicant’s father. Three witnesses were interviewed on 9 July 2019. On   10   July 2019 the material from the earlier complaints of the applicant’s father to the Sofia district prosecutor’s office (see paragraph 6 above) was added to the case file. 15 .     On 15 July 2019 (eleven days after the opening of the criminal proceedings), the applicant’s father signed a promissory note in favour of Mr   P.P.’s (then) wife, Ms L.P., undertaking to pay her 2,816,395 Bulgarian levs (BGN – 1,440,000 euros (EUR)) on 30 November 2019. 16 .     The applicant submitted, with reference to various media publications,   that Ms L.P. had links with a (previous) Chief Prosecutor and with a non-governmental organisation which had in 2015 organised a campaign in favour of the Chief Prosecutor and against people perceived as hostile to him. First detention of the applicant Arrest and initial charges 17 .     In the early morning of 17 July 2019 the police arrested the applicant at his home. His mother, his sister and his sister’s husband were also arrested, as were the then and former managers of K Korekshan EOOD (see paragraphs   8 and 11 above). At 6.30 a.m. the applicant was placed in police detention for up to twenty-four hours. 18 .     At 11.15 p.m. on the same day the applicant was charged with three offences: ( a ) being (with his mother, his sister, his sister’s husband, and the then and former managers of K Korekshan EOOD) a member of a gang formed for the purpose of money laundering; ( b ) blackmailing his father; and   ( c ) money laundering. 19 .     Immediately after that Mr G.M., the second prosecutor put in charge of the case (see paragraph 13 above), placed the applicant and the former manager of K Korekshan EOOD in detention for up to seventy-two hours pending the hearing of an application by him to the Specialised Criminal Court to place the two of them in pre-trial detention (see paragraph 20 below). The following day, 18 July 2020, the same prosecutor placed the then manager of K Korekshan EOOD in detention for up to seventy-two hours as well. Proceedings before the Specialised Criminal Court 20 .     At 3.11 p.m. on 19 July 2019 the same prosecutor, Mr G.M., applied to the Specialised Criminal Court to place the applicant and the then and former managers of K Korekshan EOOD in pre-trial detention. According to the applicant, his father had already written several hours earlier, on the morning of 19 July 2019, to all employees in their joint company stating that the applicant would be detained for “a further six months”. 21 .     The Specialised Criminal Court heard the prosecutor’s application between 8.30 a.m. and 2 p.m. the following day, 20 July 2019. 22 .     Counsel for the three accused argued, inter alia , that the proceedings had been opened to “make [the applicant’s father] happy”. That smacked of a “commission” and suggested that the proceedings had been opened for purposes straying far from those envisaged by the law. Counsel pointed in that connection to: ( a )     the haste with which the proceedings had been opened; ( b )     the odd decision to assign the case to the National Investigation Service (see paragraph 10 above); ( c )     the bragging by the applicant’s father that the applicant would be detained (see paragraph 20 in fine above); ( d )     material suggesting that before the investigation had been opened, the applicant’s father had already been aware that it would be opened and that specific charges would be brought and specific people detained; and ( e )     suspicious similarities between the legal characterisation of the offences in the complaint lodged by the applicant’s father (which had clearly not been written by him personally) and in the ensuing charge sheet. 23 .     The Specialised Criminal Court gave its decision ex tempore at the end of the hearing. The judge placed the applicant, but not the two others, in pre-trial detention. She did not comment on the allegations that there was an ulterior purpose for the proceedings. Proceedings before the Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal 24 .     On 22 July 2019 both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed to the Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal. 25 .     On 25 July 2019 the charges against the applicant were amended. The first charge (see paragraph 18 (a) above) was altered to conspiracy (with the same people) for the purpose of aggravated embezzlement. The second and third charges (see paragraph 18 (b) and (c) above) remained unaltered. It was additionally alleged that the applicant had embezzled assets belonging to Izamet 1991 OOD and had attempted to misappropriate money belonging to his father. 26 .     The hearing took place on 30 July 2019 between 2 p.m. and 7.19 p.m. 27 .     Besides their comments on the substance of the appeals, counsel for the three accused again suggested that the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office had undertaken to carry out the wishes of the applicant’s father. According to them, the purpose of the case was to have some sort of charges which could serve as a basis to detain the people whom the applicant’s father wished to see out of his way, and to exert pressure on them through their detention. 28 .     The Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal gave its decision ex   tempore at the end of the hearing. The panel upheld, by two votes to one, the decision of the judge below to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. It also did not comment on the allegations of ulterior purpose. The dissenting judge stated, inter alia , that all the offences alleged against the applicant concerned relations within the family, and that pre-trial detention was hence not an appropriate measure in respect of him. The applicant’s medical problems in detention and his release (a)    The applicant’s medical problems 29 .     While in detention the applicant fell seriously ill with kidney problems, among other things. In his interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund, released on YouTube on 4 October 2021 (see paragraph 3 above and footnote 1), he said that (a) while he had been in custody, he had repeatedly been threatened in order to pressure him to transfer his shares in the companies co-owned with his father (see paragraph 4 above) to a straw man selected by Mr P.P., and that (b) an infection which he had acquired (perhaps by design) in a hospital to which he had been taken for treatment had caused him to develop urosepsis and nearly die, owing in particular to the lack of proper medical treatment. 30 .     From the documents submitted by the applicant, it appears that he was treated in various hospitals in September-December 2019 (for part of which he was still in detention) and underwent a number of surgeries. On   8   November 2019 his left kidney was surgically removed. Because his remaining kidney has impaired function he has had to undergo haemodialysis three times a week since that operation. (b)    First request for release 31 .     On 13 September 2019 the applicant sought his release from detention and on 7 October 2019 the Specialised Criminal Court acceded to his request. 32 .     The Specialised Prosecutor’s Office appealed against that decision, and on 15 October 2019 the Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision and decided to keep the applicant in pre-trial detention. (c)    Second request for release and release of the applicant 33 .     On 16 October 2019 the applicant again sought his release. The Specialised Criminal Court heard the request on 30 October 2019 but decided that in order to come to a decision it would need an expert report on how ill the applicant was, whether he could be treated while in detention, and whether his health was compatible with his remaining in detention. 34 .     The expert report, which became available on 5 November 2019, stated that the applicant suffered from acute kidney impairment. Initially, he had been suffering from nephrolithiasis (kidney stones), but that had worsened and had led to a chronic inflammation of his pelvicalyceal system, acute bilateral pyelonephritis and pyelitis, and the onset of urosepsis and hepatorenal syndrome. Those conditions required complex medical treatment   – including haemodialysis and, possibly, intensive care and surgery   – and could only be treated in a specialised medical facility. They were life-threatening and incompatible with the applicant’s remaining in detention. 35 .     On 6 November 2019 the Specialised Criminal Court held a second hearing on the applicant’s request for release, and on an application by the prosecution ordered a further expert report on his state of health. 36 .     On 8 November 2019 the Specialised Criminal Court admitted in evidence the second expert report and heard the opinion of two medical experts, who reiterated that the state of the applicant’s health made it impossible for him to remain in a detention facility. The Specialised Criminal Court decided that the applicant was to be released on bail. It found, in particular, that his life-threatening medical condition made it highly unlikely that he would flee, commit an offence or hinder the investigation. 37 .     The Specialised Prosecutor’s Office appealed against that decision. The Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal heard the appeal on 14 November 2019 and upheld the decision of the court below. The judge rapporteur noted, in particular, that for four months no investigative steps had been taken in the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Seized cash and valuables Seizure of those items (a)    Search-warrant applications and search warrants 38 .     On 16 July 2019 Mr G.M., the second prosecutor put in charge of the case against the applicant (see paragraph 13 above), made more than twenty applications to the Specialised Criminal Courts for search warrants in respect of: (a)     the applicant and certain flats, cars and safe deposit boxes used by him; (b)     the applicant’s mother, and a flat and safe deposit boxes used by her; (c)     the applicant’s sister and her husband, and flats and cars used by them; and (d)     the former manager of K Korekshan EOOD (see paragraphs 8 and 11 above), and a flat used by him. 39 .     The applications, which were nearly identical, did not explain specifically why the prosecutor believed that items relevant for the investigation would be found as a result of those searches or why it was necessary to seize such items. 40 .     The same day, 16 July 2019, two judges of the Specialised Criminal   Court – one of whom was the judge who would place the applicant in pre-trial detention four days later (see paragraph 23 above) – allowed all of those applications. Neither of the judges explained in their decisions specifically why they had concluded that the search warrants were to be granted; one of the judges merely referred, in all her decisions, to the “reasons set out in the [application]” and the “material in the case [file]”, and the other judge referred to “the steps taken so far [in the investigation]”. 41 .     It is unclear whether the Specialised Criminal Court issued search warrants in respect of the safe deposit boxes. It is also unclear whether those boxes were the same as the ones subsequently searched by the police (see paragraphs 43-45 below). (b)    Searches and seizures carried out on 17 and 18 July 2019 42 .     On the morning of the following day, 17 July 2019, the police, acting on the basis of one of the above warrants (see paragraphs 39-40 above) and pursuant to instructions by the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office, searched the applicant’s flat. There, they seized a number of gold coins and one silver coin, and several thousand euros and Bulgarian levs in cash. The applicant noted in the record of the search that all those items belonged to him. In another flat in the same building, which also seems to have been used by the applicant and his mother and was searched by the police, apparently without a judicial warrant, the police found and seized, inter alia , a contract between the applicant’s mother and a bank for the rental of a safe deposit box. 43 .     In the early afternoon of the same day, 17 July 2019, the police went to that bank, searched (without a judicial warrant) the safe deposit box rented by the applicant’s mother, and seized EUR 550,000 in cash that they found inside. The applicant submitted at the time that that sum belonged to him. In his interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund that was released on YouTube on 8 October 2021 (see paragraph 3 above and footnote 1), he said that only EUR 350,000 of the sum belonged to him and the rest to his mother. On the same or the following day, 18 July 2019, the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office asked the Specialised Criminal Court to approve the search ex post facto . On   18 July 2019 one of the two judges who had issued the warrants on 16   July 2019 (see paragraph 40 above) did so, holding, without further elaboration, that the search had been carried out as a matter of urgency and in line with the Code of Criminal Procedure. 44 .     Later the same afternoon the police also searched, likewise without a judicial warrant, a safe deposit box which the applicant was renting in another bank, and seized more than eight hundred gold coins from it. The applicant noted in the record of the search that the gold items were family valuables, and that most of them had been “left to [him] by [his] grandmothers”. The same day the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office asked the Specialised Criminal Court to approve the search ex post facto . The following day, 18 July 2019, the other of the two judges who had issued the search warrants on 16 July 2019 (see paragraph 40 above) did so, holding, without further elaboration, that “there [had been] urgency in the case at hand ... and the carrying out of   ... the search without [seeking prior judicial approval had been] the only way of gathering and preserving evidence”. 45 .     On 18 July 2019 the same prosecutor, Mr G.M., who had sought the series of search warrants on 16 July 2019 (see paragraph 38 above) applied for a search warrant in respect of another safe deposit box rented by the applicant in the same bank as the safe deposit box rented by his mother (see paragraph 43 above). The same day the judge who had approved ex post facto the search of the other safe deposit box used by the applicant (see paragraph   44 above) allowed the application, giving the same reasons, nearly word for word, as those that she had given for her decisions of 16 July 2019 (see paragraph 40 above). The same day the police searched the box and seized from it more than a thousand gold coins, a gold plate and several thousand euros in cash. The applicant again noted in the record of the search that the gold items were family valuables “[inherited] from [his] grandmothers”. 46 .     In a subsequent in-house report on the handling of the criminal cases against the applicant (see paragraph 130 below), a prosecutor from the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office noted that none of the seized items had been described in sufficient detail in the records attesting their seizure, and that in his view this had been in breach of the requirement in Article 110 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that seized items be carefully inspected and described in detail in the seizure record (see paragraph 134 below). Nor was there any indication that that omission had been made good by inspecting the items in more detail later on. The subsequent report also noted the apparent absence of any record attesting that any of the seized cash and valuables had been handed for safekeeping to a bank, as required by Article   110 § 5 of the same Code (see paragraph 134 in fine below). Handing over of the seized coins and cash to third parties (a)    Handing over of the seized gold to the applicant’s father (i)       As related to the Anti-Corruption Fund 47 .     In his interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund released on YouTube on 8 July 2020 (see paragraph 3 above and footnote 1), the applicant’s father said that in the winter of 2019-20, Mr D.F.P. (at that time head of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office – see paragraph 13 above) had told him that there existed invoices showing that he (the applicant’s father) had bought the gold coins seized on 17 and 18 July 2019 from a merchant in Austria. The applicant’s father believed that those invoices were false and had been drawn up by someone in the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office. On an unspecified later date, the head of a security company providing protection for Mr P.P. had called the applicant’s father to tell him to go to the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office and meet Ms L.P. (Mr P.P.’s then wife) there. She had met him in a car in front of the building and had told him that “they had found the documents for the [gold]” and that he was to go and take it, adding that “they” would take care of it and give him “his share” the following day. At about 8   p.m. he had gone into the building and been led to Mr D.F.P.’s office, where he had seen one of the lawyers working with Mr P.P. (see paragraphs 9, 11 and   15 above), another lawyer working with him (see paragraph 60 below), and a prosecutor. The applicant’s father had been shown the gold and had seen that some of the coins were missing. He had signed the requisite papers, the prosecutor had carried the gold down in two boxes and had loaded it into Ms L.P.’s car, and she had driven off. A few days later, on 26 March 2020, one of the lawyers working with Mr P.P. had called the applicant’s father and asked him to go again to the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office and get the remaining gold coins. 48 .     In his interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund released on YouTube on 8 October 2021, the applicant said that he had first learned about those events when he had seen the YouTube video in which his father had described them (see paragraph 47 above). (ii)     As emerging from the written evidence 49 .     On 11 October 2019 one of the lawyers allegedly working with Mr   P.P. submitted a request to the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office, on behalf of the applicant’s father, for the gold coins seized on 17 and 18   July 2019 from the applicant’s home and the safe deposit boxes rented by him (see paragraphs 42 and 44-45 above) to be handed over to the applicant’s father. The subsequent in-house report on the handling of the cases against the applicant (see paragraph 130 below) noted that it was odd that the detailed description of the items in that request fully matched their descriptions in the seizure records and had clearly been copied verbatim from those records, even though the applicant’s father had not been present during the searches or been given copies of those records. The lawyer enclosed with the request photocopies of invoices purporting to show that the applicant’s father had bought gold coins from a company in Germany. The subsequent in-house report noted that those invoices did not contain any description of the gold coins in issue, which would have made it possible to check whether they were the same as the gold coins seized on 17 and 18 July 2019. The report further noted that in his complaints and interviews the applicant’s father had never alleged that the applicant had misappropriated coins belonging to him. 50 .     On the same day the request was sent for decision to Mr D.D., the prosecutor initially assigned to work on the 2019 case against the applicant (see paragraph 13 above). Prosecutor D.D. dealt with the request on   18   February 2020, when he allowed it in so far as it concerned the items seized on 17 July 2019 from the safe deposit box rented by the applicant (see paragraph 44 above). He noted, without further details, that the return of those items before the conclusion of the proceedings would not hamper the investigation since no further investigative steps were envisaged in relation to them, and since they were not an object or a tool of the alleged offence, or subject to forfeiture. That was not the case, however, with the items seized from the applicant’s home and from the other safe deposit box rented by him (see paragraphs 42 and 45 above). According to the subsequent in-house report on the handling of the cases against the applicant (see paragraph 130 below), the decision of prosecutor D.D. was inconsistent, unfounded and arbitrary. In particular, the prosecutor had not even attempted to verify whether the coins allegedly purchased by the applicant’s father were the same as those seized from the applicant. The prosecutor had, moreover, decided on the request apparently without checking the case file or consulting with the investigators working on the case. 51 .     According to a record dated 23 March 2020 that was drawn up and signed by Mr K.P. – another prosecutor of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office who had also been specifically assigned to the case on 16 March 2020 by the (then) head of that office, Mr D.F.P. – and by the applicant’s father, the valuables seized from the applicant’s home and from the two safe deposit boxes rented by him (see paragraphs 42 and 44-45 above) had been handed over to the applicant’s father. The record referred to the decision of prosecutor   D.D. of 18 February 2020 but made no attempt to explain the discrepancy. The subsequent in-house report on the handling of the cases against the applicant (see paragraph 130 below), stated that the handing over of items in respect of which there had been no decision had constituted misuse of power on the part of prosecutor K.P., and recommended that he be prosecuted in relation to that. 52 .     It appears from a record dated 24 March 2020 (the following day) that prosecutor K.P. had handed over more gold coins to the lawyer purporting to act on behalf of the applicant’s father (see paragraph 49 above). The subsequent in-house report on the handling of the cases against the applicant (see paragraph 130 below) noted that the record did not make it clear which coins had been handed over, but that prosecutor K.P. had apparently handed over coins not covered by the decision of prosecutor D.D. 53 .     The same day, 24 March 2020, the same lawyer asked the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office to hand over more gold coins seized from the applicant’s home and the two safe deposit boxes rented by him (see paragraphs 42 and   44-45 above) to the applicant’s father. Two days later, on 26 March 2020, prosecutor K.P. allowed the request and ordered that the coins in issue were to be handed over to the applicant’s father. He noted that they had not been returned in the decision of 18 February 2020 (see paragraph 50 above) owing to clerical mistakes, and went on to say that there was no intention to subject the coins to forensic examination or carry out other investigative steps in respect of them. Moreover, the evidence did not suggest that the coins were the proceeds of, or an instrument for the commission of the offence with which the applicant was charged. Prosecutor K.P. then proceeded to hand over the coins in issue to the lawyer. According to the subsequent in-house report on the handling of the cases against the applicant (see paragraph 130 below), that decision of prosecutor K.P. was – like the earlier decision of prosecutor D.D. (see paragraph 50 above) – unfounded, unlawful and arbitrary. (b)    Handing of some of the seized cash to Mr D.L. (i)       As related to the Anti-Corruption Fund 54 .     In an interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund released on YouTube on 31 July 2020 (see footnote 1), a Mr D.L. said that on 9 March 2020 an acquaintance of his had told him that prosecutor D.F.P. (see paragraph 47 above) had asked him to go to a restaurant where Mr P.P. was holding his meetings. There he had met Mr P.P. and two men, who had told him that everything was happening with the involvement of Mr D.F.P., and that the (then) Chief Prosecutor, Mr I.G., had also been informed. They had threatened Mr D.L. that if he did not cooperate there would be consequences for him and his family. Two days later, on 11 March 2020, the same acquaintance of Mr D.L. had again taken him to a meeting with Mr P.P., who was this time accompanied by a lawyer who had drawn up a letter of authority whereby Mr D.L. would authorise her to act on his behalf, and a “contract for safekeeping of funds” purporting to show that he had given the applicant, whom he did not know and had never met, EUR 650,000 in cash for safekeeping. Mr D.L. had had to sign those two documents. 55 .     In his interview (see paragraph 54 above), Mr D.L. went on to say that on 16 March 2020 he had been told to go to the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office to sign that he had received the cash. Two men, probably prosecutors, had shown him into the building, where he had been invited to sign a document stating that he had been handed the money, in the presence of the same lawyer whom he had authorised on 11 March 2020 (see paragraph 54 above). An employee of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office had handed the cash to that lawyer, and Mr D.L. and the lawyer had left the building. The lawyer had got in Mr P.P.’s car, and she and Ms L.P. had driven off. No record had been given to Mr D.L. to attest that he had been handed the cash; he had only been given a copy of the decision of 16 March 2020 (see paragraph 58 above). 56 .     In his interview with the Anti-Corruption Fund released on YouTube on 8 October 2021 (see paragraph 3 above and footnote 1) the applicant said that he had first learned about those events when he had seen the video in which Mr D.L. had described them (see paragraph 54 above). (ii)     As emerging from the written evidence 57 .     On 11 March 2020 the lawyer who was purporting to act on behalf of Mr D.L. asked the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office to hand over to Mr D.L. EUR   650,000 which he had allegedly given to the applicant “for safekeeping” in October 2018. 58 .     On the same day the request was assigned to prosecutor D.D., but five days later, on 16 March 2020, it was reassigned to prosecutor K.P. – who had been specifically assigned to the case on that same day (see paragraph 51 above). Also on the same day, 16 March 2020, prosecutor K.P. ordered that the EUR 550,000 seized from the safe deposit box rented by the applicant’s mother (see paragraph 44 above) be handed over to Mr D.L. He noted that the lawyer acting on behalf of Mr D.L. had enclosed with the request for the return of the cash a contract showing that in 2018 Mr D.L. had given the applicant EUR 650,000 for safekeeping. There was no intention to subject the seized cash to forensic examination or carry out other investigative steps in respect of it. Moreover, the evidence did not suggest that the cash was the proceeds of, or an instrument for the commission of, the offence of which the applicant was accused. It had been given to him for safekeeping and bore no relation to the case against him. The lawyer acting on behalf of Mr D.L. had also enclosed with the request evidence of the lawful origin of the money. The subsequent in-house report on the handling of the criminal cases against the applicant (see paragraph 130 below) analysed that decision and the circumstances in which it had been taken, and concluded that it had been “completely without foundation and arbitrary”. 59 .     The same day, 16 March 2020, prosecutor K.P. handed over the EUR   550,000 to the lawyer purporting to act on behalf of Mr D.L. Second detention of the applicant and his ensuing house arrest Meeting in February 2020 60 .     According to the applicant, in February 2020 he and his wife had been summoned to a meeting with a lawyer working with Mr P.P., Ms D.K. She had threatened the applicant that unless he transferred his shares in the companies co-owned with his father by 10 March 2020, her “bosses” would place him in detention and that he would not be released as he had been the first time, even if he were dying. When the applicant enquired who “they” were, Ms   D.K. had stated that “Mr [P.P.] was a very influential man and that for the next seven years, while Mr I.G. [was] Chief Prosecutor, they [the applicant and his wife] should do as they [we]re told, because if they did not, [the applicant] would remain in prison until he vanished”. 61 .     The applicant did not transfer his shares to anyone within the deadline given to him by Ms D.K. Arrest of the applicant on 16 March 2020 and fresh charge 62 .     On 13 March 2020 Mr D.D., one of the prosecutors who had been in charge of the 2019 case against the applicant (see paragraphs 13, 18 and 25 above), decided to separate some of the material in the case into a new file on the grounds that it contained information pointing to the existence of a second criminal gang formed for the purpose of money laundering. On 16 March 2020 the (then) head of the Specialised Prosecutor’s Office, Mr D.F.P., specifically chose another prosecutor, Mr M.I., to also work on the case. The same day prosecutor M.I. opened fresh criminal proceedings on the basis of the material separated from the 2019 case, noting, without further elaboration, that it was sufficient for a reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed. The subsequent in-house report on the handling of the cases against the applicant (se