CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mai 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Published on 5 June 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 40478/22 Lenka IVANOVÁ against Slovakia lodged on 16 August 2022 communicated on 15 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the freezing of the applicant’s entire property in the framework of criminal proceedings initiated against her and two other persons for breach of duty in administration of another’s property and for money laundering. The applicant unsuccessfully requested that the scope of the freezing be reduced. The criminal proceedings are still ongoing. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as well as Article   6 of the Convention, the applicant claims that the freezing order was disproportionate to the aim pursued, disabling her to take daily care of her family including two minor children. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the freezing of her assets?   2.     If so, was that interference lawful? In particular, was the applicable legislation sufficiently precise regarding the conditions for freezing?   3.     Was the interference carried out in pursuance of a legitimate aim by means proportionate to the aim sought to be realised or did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant? In particular, did the domestic authorities assess whether there was a link between the applicant’s assets frozen and the criminal offences for which she was prosecuted?   4.     In this context, did the domestic authorities have the possibility to limit the freezing of the applicant’s property to a certain amount or did they have no choice but to freeze the entirety of her property?