CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 janvier 2024

.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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 January 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 25112/21 OOO MEGA against Bulgaria lodged on 5 May 2021 communicated on 8 January 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the forfeiture of a lorry belonging to the applicant company in the context of criminal proceedings against third parties. The applicant company runs an international transport business. On 28   June 2020, one of its company’s lorries was stopped for inspection at the Turkish-Bulgarian border. The customs authorities found and seized forbidden plant protection chemical substances in the loaded cargo. The lorry and the trailer were retained as material evidence pending the criminal proceedings against the lorry drivers. Subsequently, the two lorry drivers concluded a plea bargain agreement with the prosecutor whose terms included suspended prison sentences for the drivers and the forfeiture of the lorry which was used for the commission of the offence. It appears that the trailer was not part of the agreement. In accordance with Article 382 § 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Yambol Regional Court approved the plea bargain in a decision of 9   December 2020. The decision was not subject to appeal and entered into force with immediate effect. The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, taken alone and together with Article 13 of the Convention, as well as under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, that it had no opportunity under domestic law to challenge the forfeiture of its property and that, as a result, it suffered an excessive individual burden.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the confiscation of the lorry belonging to the applicant company amount to an interference with its peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference lawful and 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? In particular, was there any possibility that the applicant company could effectively challenge the confiscation (see Microintelect OOD v. Bulgaria , no.   34129/03, §§   44 ‑ 50, 4   March 2014; Ünsped Paket Servisi SaN. Ve TiC. A.Ş. v.   Bulgaria , no.   3503/08, §§ 45-47, 13 October 2015; and Trafik Oil   1-EOOD v.   Bulgaria [Committee], no. 67437/17, §§ 42-46, 18 May 2021)? 2.     Did the applicant company have effective access to a court, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to challenge the forfeiture? 3.     Did the applicant company have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, to submit the above complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?