CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 juin 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 6 June 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 7202/09 Nikolay Dimitrov GENOV against Bulgaria lodged on 5 January 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Nikolay Dimitrov Genov, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Pazardzhik. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Stoyanov, a lawyer practising in Pazardzhik. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 10 January 2007 the police searched the applicant’s home, where it found counterfeit US dollar bank notes equivalent to USD 500. The applicant said that in 2002 his brother had given him money after having sold some property, and that on several occasions after that he had exchanged Bulgarian levs for dollars, and had been keeping the notes found “for hard times”. He claimed that he did not know that they were counterfeit. In July 2007 the prosecution authorities charged the applicant under Article 244 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see the section “Relevant domestic law” below) with having acquired the bank notes “in the period from 2002 to 10 January 2007” with the knowledge that they were counterfeit. The applicant was brought to court and on 25 January 2008 was convicted by the Pazardzhik Regional Court, but for having acquired the counterfeit notes “in the period from 26 March 2005 to 10 January 2007”, as it was noted that it had been only on the former date that the act of acquiring such notes had been criminalised. No evidence was collected demonstrating when the applicant had obtained these notes, apart from the applicant’s explanations mentioned above and his brother’s, corroborating them. Finding in addition that the applicant had been aware at the time of obtaining the notes that they were counterfeit, the Regional Court gave him a suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment. The Regional Court’s judgment was upheld on 24 April and 24   November 2008 respectively by the Plovdiv Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Cassation, which endorsed the lower court’s reasoning. In his appeal on points of law lodged with the Supreme Court of Cassation, the applicant contested the finding that he had acquired the bank notes “in the period from 26 March 2005 to 10 January 2007”, arguing that the expression was too general and that the lower courts had not explained why he could not have received the notes before 2005, when acquiring counterfeit bank notes had not amounted to a criminal offence. The applicant claims that he raised the same argument before the Court of Appeal, although this is not shown by the documents submitted by him. Neither the Court of Appeal, nor the Supreme Court of Cassation commented on the matter. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Knowingly using counterfeit bank notes and putting such notes into circulation are offences under Article 244 § 1 of the Criminal Code of 1968. After an amendment which entered into force on 26 March 2005, acquiring such notes with the knowledge that they are counterfeit was added to the list. At the relevant time the above offences were punishable by up to eight years’ imprisonment. COMPLAINT The applicant, relying on Article 6 and Article 7 of the Convention, complains that the domestic courts examining the charges against him failed to comment on his claim that it had not been shown that he had acquired the counterfeit bank notes after 26 March 2005, that is after acquiring such notes had become a criminal offence.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, under its criminal limb, been violated in the case, on account of the Plovdiv Court of Appeal’s and in particular the Supreme Court of Cassation’s failure to respond to the applicant’s claim that he could have obtained before 26 March 2005 the counterfeit bank notes found in his home, that is in a period when acquiring such notes had not yet been criminalised?