CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juin 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 20 June 2022   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 24585/18 and 47159/20 Ivo Georgiev PROKOPIEV and Others against Bulgaria and LANDMARK BULGARIA TZAR EOOD and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 15 May 2018 and 21 October 2020 respectively communicated on 3 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the freezing of numerous assets of the applicants – Mr Ivo Prokopiev, his wife and companies directly or indirectly controlled by him – in proceedings under the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Assets Act 2012 (“the 2012 Act”), with a view to securing a forfeiture claim against them. The impugned interim measures were imposed in several decisions starting in 2017, and the forfeiture claim brought in 2018 is pending before the national courts. The forfeiture proceedings were opened following the bringing of charges against Mr Prokopiev for aiding and abetting a public official’s abuse of office and for money laundering. While on some of the charges Mr   Prokopiev was acquitted with finality, and for the others the criminal proceedings were discontinued by the prosecution authorities, this is not, in principle, an impediment for forfeiture under the 2012 Act. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the prolonged freezing of their assets. They argue that this measure is arbitrary, in particular in light of the dropping of all charges against Mr Prokopiev, and that it results in disproportionate restrictions on their activities. The applicants in application no. 24585/18 complain also under Article 18 of the Convention, arguing that the measures against them were in fact aimed to exercise pressure on Mr Prokopiev because of the critical stance of media owned by him against the government. Mr Prokopiev and his wife (the latter is the director of those media) complain in addition under Article 10 of the Convention. The case concerns moreover statements of State officials made between 2017 and 2020, allegedly implying that Mr Prokopiev was guilty of the offences he was charged with while the examination of those charges was pending, and otherwise overly critical to him. He complains in that regard under Articles 6 § 2 and 8 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the freezing of the applicants’ assets under the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Assets Act 2012 compliant with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? 2.     As concerns the applicants in application no. 24585/18, were the restrictions above applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by Article   1 of Protocol No. 1, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention? 3.     Has there been an interference with the freedom of expression of Mr   I.   Prokopiev and Ms G. Prokopieva, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2? 4.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, seeing the statements of public officials on Mr Prokopiev’s guilt? In addition, could the statements by public officials encroach upon Mr Prokopiev’s good name and reputation and thus upon his right to respect for his private life, protected under Article 8 of the Convention?   APPENDIX List of applicants No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth/registration Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 24585/18 Prokopiev and Others v. Bulgaria 15/05/2018 Ivo Georgiev PROKOPIEV 1971 Sofia Bulgarian Galya Valentinova PROKOPIEVA 1973 Sofia Bulgarian ALFA FINANCE HOLDING AD 1999 Sofia Bulgarian SOLARPRO HOLDING AD 2009 Sofia Bulgarian ALFA ENERGY HOLDING EAD 2009 Sofia Bulgarian Georgi Nikolov ATANASOV 2. 47159/20 Landmark Bulgaria Tzar EOOD and Ohers v. Bulgaria 21/10/2020 LANDMARK BULGARIA TZAR EOOD 2002 Sofia Bulgarian LANDMARK BULGARIA AIRPORT EOOD 2002 Sofia Bulgarian   LANDMARK BULGARIA OFFICE EOOD 2004 Sofia Bulgarian LANDMARK BULGARIA TOWER EOOD 2006 Sofia Bulgarian SPLENDID VIEW EOOD 2012 Sofia Bulgarian Stanislav Krastev KOSTOV