The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Tuesday against Bulgaria in a case, Mandev and Others v Bulgaria, pertaining to the unfair and unjustified forfeiture of assets presumed to be the proceeds of crime and high court fees.
In a single judgment, the court combined five distinct applications. Mandev, the first applicant, confessed to extortion in 2004. Glavchev, the second applicant, found guilty of sex trafficking in 2003, is also involved in the case. Rachevi, the third applicant, was convicted of the possession of counterfeit banknotes. Marvakov and Dimov, the fourth and fifth applicants, were convicted for their roles in an organized criminal group created for drug trafficking and smuggling, respectively.
At conviction, regional courts applied the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act of 2005 to these cases. Consequently, the Bulgarian state was permitted to confiscate illegal assets when no legal source for their acquisition could be established.
In a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (except for Glavchev and Glavchev Group OOD), the national courts were found to have unjustifiably confiscated the applicants’ assets as proceeds of crime without providing evidence of a causal link between criminal conduct and the acquired assets. On the other hand, in the case of Glavchev, evidence substantiated a causal link as monetary gains could logically be assumed to stem from the activity of sex trafficking.
Additionally, a violation of the same Article was also declared in every case for the excessive fees charged by the courts. The court’s verdict was founded on a precedent set in Todorov and Others v Bulgaria in 2021. In this previous case, the ECHR traced a multitude of deficiencies with the Bulgarian 2005 Act, which placed a hefty burden on defendants in forfeiture proceedings without considering a causal connection between assets and crime.
In Tuesday’s ruling, Bulgaria has been directed to reimburse detailed financial and non-monetary damages to each individual case. This illustrates the authority of ECHR in dealing with human rights violations as described in the convention.
For more detailed reporting, see the full article here.