CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 21 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; 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 } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s4836203C { font-style:italic; text-transform:none } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6C2746C6 { margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s6047437D { width:11.03pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1EDC9B7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s871A718A { width:136.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } THIRD SECTION CASE OF MANDEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (Applications nos. 57002/11 and 4 others – see appended list)     JUDGMENT   Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Forfeiture of assets as proceeds of crime • Application of the requirements set out in Todorov and Others v.   Bulgaria • Domestic courts’ failure, as in Todorov, to justify the existence of a causal link between the predicate offences or any other criminal conduct of the applicants in four of the applications resulting in a disproportionate interference • Confiscated assets reasonably shown to be proceeds of crime in relation to the remaining application • Reasoning in that respect neither arbitrary nor manifestly unreasonable Art 1 P1 • Secure the payment of contributions or penalties interest • Excessive court fees for lodging appeals in forfeiture proceedings • Fair balance between the general interest of the community and fundamental rights of the individual upset   STRASBOURG 21 May 2024   FINAL   23/09/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mandev and Others v. Bulgaria, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting 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 applications (nos. 57002/11, 61872/11, 46024/12, 6430/13 and 67333/13) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by several Bulgarian nationals and companies whose details are set out in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates also indicated in the table; the death of the applicant Mr Petar Krastev Marvakov on 15 February 2017 and the wish expressed by his wife, Ms Svetla Ivanova Marvakova, to pursue the case in his stead; the decision to give notice to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the forfeiture of the applicants’ assets under legislation concerning proceeds of crime and the amount of court fees paid by the applicants in the judicial proceedings on the forfeiture, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 5 March and 2 April 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case raises issues under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It concerns the forfeiture of assets as proceeds of crime which, according to the applicants, was unfair and unjustified. The case also concerns the allegedly excessive court fees paid by the applicant in the forfeiture proceedings. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers whose names and places of practice are indicated in the appendix. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agents, Ms M. Dimitrova, Ms S. Sobadzhieva, Ms I. Nedyalkova and Ms B. Simeonova, from the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. application n o . 57002/11 – mandevi v . Bulgaria 5 .     In 2006 Mr Atanas Mandev (the first applicant – see the appended table) entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution authorities, admitting to having committed extortion in 2004 and accepting a suspended sentence of imprisonment. The agreement was approved by the Sliven Regional Court. 6 .     Since the offence at issue was among those set out as predicate offences in section 3(1) of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 (hereinafter “the 2005 Act”; see paragraphs 52-53 below), the Commission for Uncovering Proceeds of Crime (hereinafter “the Commission”) commenced proceedings against the four applicants – Mr Atanas Mandev, his wife Vanya Mandeva (the second applicant) and his parents Angel Mandev and Maria Mandeva (the third and fourth applicants). After conducting checks covering the period between 1990 and 2006, it brought a forfeiture application in the courts. 7 .     The application was partially allowed in judgments of the Sliven Regional Court of 1 August 2008 and the Burgas Court of Appeal of 23   October 2010. The forfeiture order became final on 25 February 2011, when the Supreme Court of Cassation (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) refused to accept the case for a cassation review. 8 .     The domestic courts found that during the period under examination (1990-2006) the first and second applicants had received income of 620,559   Bulgarian levs (BGN), equivalent to about 317,400 euros (EUR), and had had expenses of BGN 753,230 (EUR 385,280). The courts only partially accepted the two applicants’ statements as to the sources of their income, pointing out that some of their claims that they had taken out loans and had made a profit from economic activity remained unproven. The applicants had made expenses for living costs, for the purchase and improvement of immovable property, and for the repayment of loans. 9 .     Since the first and second applicants’ expenses significantly exceeded their income from what was considered to be lawful sources, the applicants had not rebutted the presumption that their assets were the proceeds of crime as set out in section 4(1) of the 2005 Act. In the words of the Sliven Regional Court, “[i]t is precisely the failure to prove the lawful provenance of the assets that shows that those assets are the proceeds of crime”. 10 .     As to the third and fourth applicants, in 2006 their son had transferred a plot of land with buildings to them. That property was subject to forfeiture as well, given that those applicants had not rebutted the presumption under section 8(1) of the 2005 Act that they knew about its criminal provenance. 11 .     The national courts therefore ordered the forfeiture of several immoveable properties and the proceeds of the sale of further properties. The assets in respect of which the forfeiture was ordered were valued at BGN   421,971 (EUR 215,842). 12 .     At the close of the proceedings the applicants were ordered to pay BGN 16,878 (EUR 8,630) in court fees, amounting to 4% of the value of the assets in respect of which the Commission’s application had been allowed. The applicants paid an additional BGN 8,377 (EUR 4,285) in court fees to file their appeal against the first-instance judgment. 13 .     After the forfeiture order became effective, the National Revenue Agency, which enforced such orders, sold one of the properties for BGN   12,030 (EUR 6,153). Another property was sold in enforcement proceedings initiated by third parties, with the State receiving BGN   50,813 (EUR   25,990) from the sale price. With regard to yet another property, the forfeiture order could not be enforced since its description in the court judgments was found to be erroneous. Lastly, in so far as the forfeiture concerned the proceeds of sale of further properties, no part of those sums was paid, and in April 2022 the applicants’ debt became time-barred. 14 .     As to the order for the applicants to pay BGN 16,878 (EUR 8,630) in court fees (apart from those paid for the appeal – see paragraph 12 above), the National Revenue Agency managed to collect BGN 642 (EUR   328) before the debt became time-barred in 2022. application n o . 61872/11 – Glavchev and Glavchev group ood v . bulgaria 15 .     In a judgment of 5 November 2003, which became final in 2005, Mr   Petar Glavchev (the first applicant) was convicted of sex trafficking, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. As established by the criminal courts, between 1999 and 2003 the applicant’s son and nephew had recruited and brought to Western Europe many Bulgarian women, who had then worked for them as prostitutes. The first applicant had also participated in the scheme, mainly as a chauffeur. The son and nephew were convicted for pimping, committed between 1999 and 2003, and for sex trafficking, and the first applicant – only for sex trafficking, in particular for having organised the transfer abroad of a woman in March 2003. The offence of trafficking in human beings, including for the purpose of prostitution, was criminalised under Bulgarian law in 2002. 16 .     Since the offence at issue was among those set out in section 3(1) of the 2005 Act, the Commission initiated an inquiry into the income and expenditure of the first applicant and his wife between 1981 and 2006, and into those of a company controlled by them, namely Glavchev Group OOD, the second applicant. In December 2006 the Commission filed a forfeiture application with the Plovdiv Regional Court seeking the confiscation of a plot of land of 416 square metres in Plovdiv with a seven-storey office building constructed on it. According to the Commission, the value of the property, and accordingly the value of the claim against the applicants, was BGN   832,462 (EUR 425,811). 17 .     The forfeiture application was allowed by the national courts in judgments of the Plovdiv Regional Court of 30 May 2009, of the Plovdiv Court of Appeal of 14 January 2010, and of the Supreme Court of 21   March 2011. 18 .     The courts found that during the period under examination the income of the first applicant and his wife for which a lawful provenance had been established amounted to BGN 155,905 (EUR 80,000). During the same period, in 1997 they had bought a plot of land for BGN   263,080 (EUR   135,000), which they had transferred to the second applicant in 2001, and on which the second applicant had built the seven-storey building between 2001 and 2003. In 2002 the second applicant had taken out a bank loan to finance the construction works, and that loan had been fully repaid by May 2003. In 2001, 2002 and 2003 the first applicant and his wife had transferred a total of BGN 468,000 (approximately EUR 240,000) to the second applicant. When their remaining expenses were added in, in particular travel expenses, given that between 1996 and 2003 Mr Glavchev had travelled abroad ninety-eight times, their expenses for the period at issue amounted to BGN 1,165,136 (approximately EUR 596,000). 19 .     The first- and second-instance courts noted that the difference between the applicants’ proven lawful income and expenditure was sufficient to show that the applicants had not rebutted the presumption under section   4(1) of the 2005 Act that the provenance of their assets was criminal (see paragraph 53 below). For the Supreme Court, it was “logical to assume” that the expenses incurred by the first applicant and his wife were linked to the first applicant’s criminal activity, namely sex trafficking, which “could justifiably be considered a source of income”. Such a conclusion, in the Supreme Court’s view, was not based merely on the presumption contained in section 4(1) of the 2005 Act, but on “an assessment of the facts as a whole, in the context of section 4”. The Supreme Court also pointed out that the 2005 Act permitted the confiscation of assets acquired prior to the commission of the predicate offence, the sole constraint in that regard being the twenty ‑ five ‑ year time-limit under section 11 (ibid.). 20 .     The applicants were ordered by the Plovdiv Regional Court to pay BGN   32,420 (EUR 16,583) in court fees, calculated in accordance with the applicable rules as 4% of the value of the forfeiture application. The applicants paid in total another BGN 32,420 (EUR 16,583) to file their appeal against the first-instance judgment and their cassation appeal. 21 .     After the forfeiture order became final, in 2012 the office building was offered by the State to the Plovdiv Municipality, which continues to occupy it. 22 .     The applicants never paid the court fee of BGN 32,420 as ordered by the Plovdiv Regional Court, and in April 2022 the debt was written off by the National Revenue Agency as time-barred. application n o . 46024/12 – Rachevi v . bulgaria 23 .     In a judgment of the Shumen Regional Court of 26 April 2002, which became final in 2003, Mr Rosen Rachev (the first applicant) was convicted of the possession of counterfeit banknotes. The offence had been committed in 2001. 24 .     Since the offence at issue fell within the scope of the 2005 Act, in 2006 the Commission commenced proceedings against the first applicant and his wife (Ms Dimitrichka Racheva, the second applicant) and brought a forfeiture application against them. It sought the confiscation of a number of properties and vehicles, as well as the proceeds of sale of further properties and vehicles, and money in the applicants’ bank accounts. The value of the assets for which forfeiture orders were sought was assessed at BGN   383,936 (EUR 196,386), which was also the value of the forfeiture application against the applicants. 25 .     The forfeiture application was partially allowed on 20 November 2009 in a judgment of the Shumen Regional Court. The domestic court ordered the forfeiture of most of the assets claimed by the Commission, apart from sums in two bank accounts. 26 .     It found that during the period under examination, namely from 1982 to 2006, the applicants had acquired assets equivalent to 4,953 minimum monthly salaries and had incurred expenses, including living costs and expenses for travelling abroad, to a total equivalent of 6,760 minimum monthly salaries (for the use of minimum monthly salaries in proceedings under the 2005 Act as a measure to compare values during different periods, see Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, §   109, 13   July 2021). During the same period the applicants’ income from lawful sources had been equivalent to 2,689 minimum monthly salaries. In that connection the domestic court considered that some of the sources of income referred to by the applicants, in particular loans, remained unproven. 27 .     The difference between the applicants’ income and expenditure during the relevant period meant that they had not rebutted the presumption that the assets were the proceeds of crime, as set out under section 4(1) of the 2005 Act (see paragraph 53 below). 28 .     On appeal, the Shumen Regional Court’s judgment was upheld on 19   May 2010 by the Varna Court of Appeal. It noted that the applicants had not appealed against the part of the lower court’s judgment ordering the forfeiture of the proceeds of sale of certain assets and of sums available in bank accounts (see paragraph 24 above), and that in that respect the lower judgment had become effective. 29 .     The proceedings ended with a final judgment of the Supreme Court of 13 January 2012, which upheld the forfeiture. 30 .     At the close of the proceedings before the Shumen Regional Court the applicants were ordered to pay BGN 15,911 (EUR 8,138) in court fees, amounting to 4% of the value of the Commission’s claim against them. In addition, the applicants paid each time BGN 7,956 (EUR 4,069) to file their appeal against the first-instance judgment and their cassation appeal. 31 .     After the forfeiture order became final, the confiscated properties were put up for public sale, apart from a flat in Shumen which had been the subject of enforcement proceedings initiated by private parties. Three of the confiscated vehicles could not be found, one was sent to a scrapyard, and one was offered to the municipal authorities in Sofia for their use. Only a small part of the sums the applicants were ordered to pay (the sums received from the sale of assets – see paragraph 24 above) was actually received by the State, and no part of the BGN 15,911 ordered in court fees for the proceedings at first instance was ever paid by the applicants. Application n o . 6430/13 – Marvakov and Others v .   Bulgaria 32 .     On 29 May 2006 the first applicant, Mr Petar Marvakov, entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution authorities, admitting to having committed two offences – participation in an organised criminal group created for drug trafficking, and attempted drug trafficking. Both offences were committed in 2003. In the plea agreement, which was approved by the Plovdiv Regional Court, the first applicant accepted a sentence of imprisonment. 33 .     Following the conviction, the Commission commenced an investigation against the first applicant and his wife (Ms Svetla Marvakova, the second applicant), auditing their income and expenses between 1983 and 2007. The investigation also included two companies fully controlled by the family – Paldin Company EOOD and Pomfrit Company OOD (the third and fourth applicants). 34 .     In 2008 the Commission brought a forfeiture application against the four applicants, seeking orders for the confiscation of the following assets as proceeds of crime: several properties with residential and industrial buildings on them, acquired by the first applicant in the name of the third applicant in 2002 and 2007; a car owned by the first and second applicants and other vehicles owned by the third applicant; the first applicant’s shares in the third and fourth applicants (respectively 100% and 70% of the companies’ shareholdings); and BGN 44,500 (EUR 22,760) which Mr Marvakov had transferred to the fourth applicant. According to the Commission, the total value of these assets, and thus the value of the application brought by it, was BGN 839,216 (EUR 430,000). 35 .     The forfeiture application was allowed in full in judgments of the Plovdiv Regional Court and the Plovdiv Court of Appeal of 15 February and 21 July 2011. In a final decision of 17 July 2012, the Supreme Court declined to accept the case for a cassation review. 36 .     The domestic courts found that, while the first and second applicants’ income from lawful sources and their expenses during the period under examination could be calculated in various ways, on any calculation the latter exceeded the former by the equivalent of at least 1,291 minimum monthly salaries. Moreover, the first applicant had contributed the equivalent of 6,306 minimum monthly salaries to the activities of the applicant company Paldin Company EOOD, while the revenue obtained from it had amounted to 4,139 minimum monthly salaries. Accordingly, the applicants had not established the lawful provenance of their assets, which meant that they had not rebutted the presumption under section 4(1) of the 2005 Act that those assets were the proceeds of crime (see paragraph 53 below). The 2005 Act did not require the establishment of a link between any proven criminal activity and the assets subject to forfeiture. 37 .     The applicants were ordered by the first-instance Plovdiv Regional Court to pay BGN 33,569 (EUR 17,170) in court fees. They never paid that sum. They did, however, pay BGN 16,784 (EUR 8,585) to file an appeal against the first-instance judgment. 38 .     After the forfeiture order became final, it transpired that the majority of the third applicant’s properties had been mortgaged prior to the initiation of the forfeiture application. As the company had ceased its economic activities after the forfeiture and had stopped paying its debts, the properties were put up for public sale and sold to third parties without the State receiving any part of the sale price. Only one plot of land was put up for public sale by the National Revenue Agency and it was sold for BGN 933 (EUR 477). Some of the confiscated vehicles had also been sold to third parties, or their whereabouts were unknown, and the remainder were put up for public sale. No part of the sum of BGN 44,500 (see paragraph 34 above) which the fourth applicant had been ordered to pay was ever paid. Lastly, since the first applicant had ceased carrying out any economic activity through the third and fourth applicants, the shares in them which had also been subject to forfeiture were considered to have lost any real value they might once have had. 39 .     Despite the forfeiture of his shares, the first applicant remained nominally the manager of the third applicant until his death on 15 February 2017. Since no new manager was then appointed, the Plovdiv Regional Court removed the company from the companies register on 2 November 2017 at the prosecution authorities’ request. A liquidator was appointed, but he has apparently neither accepted, nor refused the appointment, and the State, as the company shares’ current owner, has not sought his replacement. 40 .     Following the first applicant’s death, the second applicant declared that she wished to pursue the application in his stead. application n o . 67333/13 – dimovi v . bulgaria 41 .     In a judgment of the Kyustendil Regional Court of 5 October 2007 the first applicant, Mr Asen Dimov, was convicted of smuggling. The criminal courts established that in June 2006 he had taken in a car 4,504 boxes of cigarettes, assessed at a value of BGN 15,419 (EUR 7,887), through the Serbo-Bulgarian border, without declaring them. He had done the trip at a suggestion by a friend and, when stopped by the customs authorities, had confessed to transporting undeclared goods, had revealed their hiding place, and had expressed remorse. The applicant was fined, and received a suspended imprisonment sentence, the domestic courts noting when ordering the suspension that he did not have previous convictions and had a “good characterisation”. 42 .     Following the conviction, the Commission commenced proceedings against the first applicant and his wife (the second applicant, Ms Daniela Dimova), and in 2009 made a forfeiture application against them. It sought the forfeiture of the following assets, with a total value according to it of BGN   337,370 (EUR 172,567): two properties, acquired in 2005 and 2008, one of which was for commercial use; several vehicles and the proceeds received by the applicants from the sale of other vehicles; and company shares. 43 .     The forfeiture application was allowed in full in judgments of the Pernik Regional Court of 30 June 2011 and the Sofia Court of Appeal of 3   December 2012. In a final decision of 12 April 2013 the Supreme Court refused to accept the case for a cassation review. 44 .     The Sofia Court of Appeal dismissed in particular an argument by the second applicant that one of the disputed properties had been gifted to her by her mother, noting that the parties had signed a sale contract. 45 .     The national courts also established that during the period under examination, namely from 1996 to 2009, the applicants’ proven lawful income had amounted to BGN 73,652 (EUR 37,673). Their expenditure, on the other hand, including for the applicants’ daily living expenses, trips abroad, the acquisition of properties, vehicles and shares in companies, and the repayment of loans had amounted to BGN 797,000 (EUR   407,672). 46 .     According to the Pernik Regional Court, the applicants’ failure to establish the lawful origin of their assets was sufficient to show that those assets were the proceeds of crime and thus subject to forfeiture. 47 .     The Sofia Court of Appeal considered, for its part, that it did have to establish a causal link between the assets to be confiscated and Mr Asen Dimov’s criminal activity, and that the applicants’ failure to prove the lawful provenance of those assets was not sufficient in that regard. It thus held that “[i]n this case, the criminal activity is the smuggling of cigarettes, which in itself is an indication of a causal link between the gains from such an activity (as an unlawful source of income) and the assets acquired by the Dimovi family, which are of substantial value”. It stated furthermore the following: “If one is to refute the presumption under section 4(1) (of the 2005 Act), one is to show that the assets acquired are not connected to criminal activity [...], and that the lawful income is sufficient. Seeing that the defendant Asen Dimov has been convicted for an offence enlisted in section 3 (of the 2005 Act), the facts of the case should lead to the conclusion that the assets at issue have been acquired by means of a criminal activity, while not necessarily the one which has resulted in the conviction.” 48 .     In its decision refusing to accept the case for cassation review (see   paragraph 43 above), the Supreme Court considered that the Sofia Court of Appeal had adequately shown a “possible link” between the assets to be confiscated and Mr Asen Dimov’s criminal activity, which was smuggling cigarettes. 49 .     The applicants were ordered by the first-instance Plovdiv Regional Court to pay BGN 13,495 (EUR 6,903) in court fees, calculated as 4% of the value of the application against them. In addition, the applicants paid BGN   6,747 (EUR 3,451) to file their appeal against the first-instance judgment. 50 .     After the forfeiture order became final, one of the applicants’ properties was sold by the State for BGN 9,160 (EUR 4,685). The other one was the subject of enforcement proceedings initiated by private parties, and after it had been put up for public sale the bailiff transferred BGN   33,090 (EUR 16,925) to the State. Of the confiscated vehicles, one was sold by the State to a third party, and the others could not be found. 51 .     The National Revenue Agency also commenced enforcement proceedings to collect the sums received from the sale of vehicles. It only obtained the payment of BGN 79 (EUR 40). It is unclear whether the applicants have paid the court fees for the first-instance proceedings, which came to BGN 13,495 (see paragraph 49 above). RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE the 2005 act 52 .     The relevant substantive and procedural provisions of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 ( Закон за отнемане в полза на държавата на имущество, придобито от престъпна дейност , “the 2005 Act”), in force until 2012, as well as the relevant judicial practice, have been described in Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, §§   90-110, 13 July 2021). 53 .     In particular, proceedings under the 2005 Act could be triggered by a conviction for one of the predicate offences set out in section 3(1). Under section 4(1) of the Act, assets of the defendants were to be presumed to be the proceeds of crime if no legal source for their acquisition had been established. The State’s right to confiscate an asset expired twenty-five years after the asset had been acquired (section 11 of the Act). 54 .     Sections 21-26 of the 2005 Act provided for the freezing of the disputed assets while the forfeiture proceedings were pending. Section 23(4) provided in particular that, where freezing measures had been imposed, they could be partially lifted to allow, among other things, the payment of litigation costs, which included court fees. A decision was to be taken by the court examining the case, on the basis of a reasoned request from the interested person or from the head of the local office of the Commission. court fees in civil proceedings 55.     The question of court fees was regulated until 2008 by the Code of Civil Procedure 1952 (hereinafter “the 1952 Code”), and after that by the Code of Civil Procedure 2008 (hereinafter “the 2008 Code”), providing essentially for the same rules. Provisions of the State Fees Act ( Закон за държавните такси ) are applicable as well. 56 .     The general rule is that court fees are payable by the plaintiff in advance, at the time when a claim is filed. State bodies are exempt from the obligation to pay court fees, except where the case concerns a private-law matter to which the State is a party. Where the plaintiff is a State body not liable to pay fees, and it is successful in the proceedings, the defendant has to pay a fee to the State for the first-instance examination of the case. When such a payment order has been made, it is usually enforced by the National Revenue Agency. 57.     Where the plaintiff succeeds in the proceedings, the defendant is to be ordered to reimburse the plaintiff for the fees paid. 58 .     As to the fees for appeals and cassation appeals, they have to be paid in advance. Such payments are a precondition for the examination of appeals. 59 .     Court fees are set at 4% of the value of the claim for proceedings before a first-instance court and 2% of the value of the claim for examination on appeal or in cassation proceedings. There is no upper limit, and the national courts have no discretion in the matter. 60 .     The value of the claim has to be stated by the plaintiff when the proceedings are commenced, and once it has been finally determined, it is binding on the courts for the purpose of calculating the relevant court fees. The defendant, or the court examining the case at first instance acting of its own motion, can contest the value of the claim stated by the plaintiff, at the latest during the first court hearing. The matter then has to be resolved by the court hearing the case. 61 .     Under Article 83 § 2 of the 2008 Code (corresponding to Article   63   §   1 of the 1952 Code), the courts can exempt parties to civil proceedings from the obligation to pay court fees where they show that they do not have sufficient financial means. 62 .     The Government submitted domestic case-law on the exemption from the obligation to pay court fees. The provisions cited above have been applied in proceedings under the 2005 Act, in particular where the relevant parties did not possess liquid assets, notwithstanding the fact that those parties could alternatively have sought the lifting of some of the interim measures freezing their assets (see paragraph 54 above). 63 .     The Bulgarian Constitutional Court, in a judgment given on 31 July 2014 in a different context ( Решение № 13 от 31 юли 2014 г. по к.д.   №   1/2014 г. ), held that fees charged by the State were “payments in favour of the State budget by an individual or a legal person, by which these persons obtain an action by a State body in their interest, or receive a service”. The service received or the action obtained means that such fees were of a “reciprocal” nature. Other provisions 64 .     Article 303 § 1 (7) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that an interested party may request the reopening of civil proceedings in a case where a “judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of the [Convention]” and “a new examination of the case is required in order to repair the consequences of the violation”. 65 .     Under Article 309 § 2, read in conjunction with Article 245 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if an application to reopen a case has been granted and the claim initially allowed is ultimately dismissed, the court hearing the reopened case is to order the reimbursement of any expenses paid by the initial losing party. 66.     The Supreme Bar Council has adopted Regulations on the Minimum Fees for Legal Representation. As in force between 2009 and 2014, section 7 of these Regulations provided that, where the interest at stake in civil proceedings was with a value exceeding BGN 10,000 (EUR 5,115), such fees would amount to BGN 650 (EUR 332), plus 2% on the value surpassing BGN   10,000. Statistical data 67 .     According to the National Statistics Institute, the average total annual income per capita in Bulgaria was as follows: - in 2006 – BGN 2,851 (EUR 1,458); - in 2007 – BGN 3,347 (EUR 1,712); - in 2008 – BGN 3,748 (EUR 1,917); - in 2009 – BGN 3,867 (EUR 1,978); - in 2010 – BGN 3,812 (EUR 1,950); - in 2011 – BGN 3,937 (EUR 2,013); - in 2012 – BGN 4,541 (EUR 2,322). THE LAW         JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 68.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Preliminary issues 69 .     Ms Petar Krastev Marvakov, one of the applicants in Marvakov and Others (application no. 6430/13), died on 15 February 2017, and his widow, Ms Svetla Ivanova Marvakova, also an applicant (see the appended table), expressed her wish to pursue the application in his stead (see paragraph 40 above). The Government did not object, in principle, to her being recognised as having standing to do so. Yet, they pointed out that Mr Marvakov had two successors – his wife and his daughter. 70 .     The Court finds that Ms Marvakova has standing to pursue the application in her husband’s stead. As to the Government’s concern about Mr   Marvakov having two successors, the Court points out that Ms   Marvakova’s standing to pursue the application stems from her legitimate interest in doing so (see Ergezen v. Turkey , no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014), and not necessarily from any entitlement to inherit property (compare Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII). Accordingly, the Court will examine the application as originally submitted by Mr Marvakov (see Kalló v. Hungary , no. 30081/02, § 25, 11 April 2006). 71.     As to the third applicant in Marvakov and Others – Paldin Company EOOD – the Government argued that it had lost its legal personality, and thus its victim status in the proceedings before the Court, after the domestic decision of 2 November 2017 removing it from the register of companies (see paragraph 39 above). 72 .     The second, third and fourth applicants (as represented by the lawyers designated at the time of lodging the application) objected, noting that the company had not been formally dissolved. Alternatively, they urged the Court to allow Ms Marvakova to pursue the application on the company’s behalf, pointing out that she had a legal interest in obtaining a finding of the Court of a violation of the company’s rights, and could, in case of such a finding, apply for the reopening of the proceedings at the national level. 73.     The Court observes that despite the decision to remove it from the register of companies, Paldin Company EOOD still exists as a separate legal person under Bulgarian law, as no steps have been taken towards its formal dissolution (see paragraph 39 above). However, there is no clarity as to who represents the company currently, as the first applicant’s shares have been confiscated (see paragraph 34 above) and the new owner – the State – has taken no meaningful steps to assume ownership and proceed, if necessary, with the company’s dissolution. 74.     The Court observes, in addition, that before the confiscation of the shares Paldin Company EOOD had been fully owned by Mr Marvakov, who had used it to acquire property in its name (see paragraph 34 above). The case concerns the forfeiture of alleged proceeds of crime and the payment of court fees, and it is clear that the measures taken against the company affected Mr   Marvakov’s own pecuniary interests (see Euromak Metal Doo v.   the   former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 68039/14, § 32, 14   June 2018). 75.     In this situation the Court accepts that Ms Marvakova, who is the successor of Mr Marvakov and pursues the application in his stead (see   paragraph 70 above), has standing also to pursue the application on behalf of Paldin Company EOOD and to obtain a final determination of the case by the Court. 76.     Consequently, the Government’s preliminary objection concerning Paldin Company EOOD is to be dismissed. complaint concerning the forfeiture of the applicants’ assets 77.     The applicants complained that the forfeiture of their assets had been unjustified. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. 78 .     Being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), the Court is of the view that the complaint falls to be examined solely under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” 79.     The complaint is of the type examined in the leading judgment Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, 13 July 2021). Scope of the complaint 80 .     While many assets were confiscated from the applicants, the forfeiture orders could not be enforced with regard to some of them because they were already subject to enforcement initiated by third parties or could not be found, or because the applicants did not pay the sums of money ordered and the State could not pursue enforcement in that regard because the matter had become time-barred (see paragraphs 13, 31, 38 and 50-51 above). 81.     As in Todorov and Others (cited above, § 134), the complaint under examination concerns only assets which were actually taken, or which the applicants remain liable to have confiscated. Assets for which enforcement is impossible for various reasons fall outside of the scope of the complaint. Admissibility Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 82 .     As concerns the case of Rachevi (application no. 46024/12), the Government argued that the applicants had not exhausted the available domestic remedies because they had not appealed against a part of the first ‑ instance court’s judgment in their case, namely the order for the payment of certain sums of money and for the forfeiture of other sums deposited in bank accounts (see paragraph 28 above). 83 .     The Court agrees that this part of the complaint is inadmissible for the reasons indicated by the Government, which the applicants did not contest. It therefore holds that this part of the complaint must be rejected under Article   35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 84.     In the cases of Mandevi (application no. 57002/11) and Rachevi , the Government argued further that the applicants had not duly raised their complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the domestic courts. The Court is of the view that, while the applicants did not rely expressly on that provision in the domestic courts, they must be considered to have raised a complaint to that effect in substance. Their efforts were aimed at defending their property rights, and they claimed that their assets had a lawful provenance and should not be confiscated. 85.     In the cases of Mandevi and Rachevi the Government claimed non ‑ exhaustion also on the ground that the applicants had not brought a tort action against the State in order to seek compensation, based on the fact that parts of the forfeiture actions against them had been rejected (see paragraphs   7 and 25 above). The Court has already dismissed an identical objection in Todorov and Others (cited above, § 138) and does not need to repeat its considerations. 86.     Lastly, the Government pointed out that in the case of Mandevi the applicants had not appealed against the freezing orders made at the start of the proceedings against them at the request of the Commission. The Court does not, however, see how this failure to appeal is related to the complaint under examination, which does not concern the interim measures taken against the applicants pending forfeiture, but the actual forfeiture of their property. 87.     The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objections of non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies, save for the one discussed in paragraphs 82-83 above. Other grounds for inadmissibility 88.     As to the remainder of the complaint, the Court notes that it is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. The complaint must therefore be declared admissible. Merits Arguments of the parties 89 .     The applicants argued that the legislation providing for the forfeiture of their assets – the 2005 Act (see paragraph 52 above) – was deficient, in that it permitted arbitrary interferences with property rights. In all five applications they contended that the national courts examining the forfeiture claims had