Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2021:883
Date: 2021-10-28
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Anonymised version 
Translation C-319/19 — 1 
Case C-319/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
17 April 2019  
Referring court: 
Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
2 April 2019  
Applicant: 
Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiata i za otnemane na 
nezakonno pridobito imushtestvo  
Defendant: 
ZV 
AX  
Meditsinski tsentar po dermatologia i estetichna meditsina PRIMA 
DERM OOD 
  
ORDER […] 
The Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court), First Civil Division, […] found as 
follows: 
[…] 
(1) […] 
The proceedings before the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria) were 
instituted following the action brought by the Komisia za protivodeystvie na 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2. 4. 2019 — CASE C-319/19 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
koruptsiata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobito imushtestvo (Commission for 
the combatting of corruption and the confiscation of illegally obtained assets) […] 
concerning the confiscation of assets […] of the following persons: ZV […] ( 
            
       the person under inquiry), AX […] 
(family member of the person under inquiry [husband]) and Meditsinski tsentar po 
dermatologia i estetichna meditsina PRIMA DERM OOD (a third party presumed 
to be controlled by the person under inquiry). 
In the course of the court proceedings, the question arose […] as to whether 
Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 
2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime 
in the European Union permits national measures such as those at issue in the 
present case, laid down in Article 1(2), Article 21(2) and Article 62, read in 
conjunction with Article 63(2), of the Zakon za otnemane v polza na darzhavata 
na nezakonno pridobito imushtestvo (otm.) (Law on the confiscation of illegally 
obtained assets (repealed) […], ‘the ZOPDNPI’). Those provisions correspond to 
those of the currently applicable Zakon za protivodeystvie na koruptsiata i za 
otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo (Law on the combatting of 
corruption and the confiscation of illegally obtained assets, ‘the ZPKONPI’ […] 
of 19 January 2018) […]. 
 […] [Or. 2] 
THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS 
(2) Applicant: Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na 
nezakonno pridobito imushtestvo (Commission for the combatting of corruption 
and the confiscation of illegally obtained assets), […]. 
(3) Defendants: ZV, […], Sofia, […] AX, […], Sofia […], and Meditsinski tsentar po 
dermatologia i estetichna meditsina PRIMA DERM OOD, having its registered 
office and administrative address in Sofia, […]. 
PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND FACTS RELEVANT TO 
THE QUESTIONS REFERRED 
(4) The Commission for the combatting of corruption and the confiscation of illegally 
obtained assets (‘the Commission’), the applicant, … […] launched an inquiry 
into the discovery of a significant discrepancy with respect to the assets of ZV 
[…]. The inquiry related to the period from 5 May 2005 to 5 May 2015 and was 
conducted on the basis of a report from the Voennookrazhna prokuratura (Sofia 
District Military Prosecutor’s Office) […], which informed the applicant that […] 
ZV was the subject of a preliminary criminal investigation conducted by the Sofia 
District Military Prosecutor’s Office in relation to an offence under the first 
KOMISIA ZA PROTIVODEYSTVIE NA KORUPTSIATA I OTNEMANE NA NEZAKONNO PRIDOBITO IMUSHTESTVO 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
sentence of Article 282(2) in conjunction with Article 282(1) of the Nakazatelen 
kodeks (Criminal Code, Bulgaria)[…]. 
(5) By order for the charging of a person and the taking of a supervision measure … 
[…], ZV was accused of having exceeded her rights, from 29 November 2004 to 
10 September 2014, in her capacity as a public official, namely as the head of the 
Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology […] at the 
Voennomedizinska akademia (Military Medical Academy) of Sofia […], by 
performing official acts that went beyond the official powers conferred on her, 
[…] in order to obtain an economic benefit for herself or for DERMA-PRIM MK 
OOD, a company in which she is a majority shareholder, by virtue of the fact that 
she: made available to […] [that company] […], free of charge and for an 
unlimited period, medical devices that were the property of the academy and the 
subject of fee-per-hour rental agreements between the academy and [that 
company] […]; without any legal basis, made devices owned by the academy 
available to that company for free-of-charge use, those devices having a total 
value of BGN 671 403; instructed the employees of the Clinic of Dermatology 
and Venereology […] to perform, during their working hours [Or. 3], in addition 
to the performance of their obligations under the employment contract, treatment 
on patients [of that company] using equipment belonging to the academy, 
whereby the payment for that treatment was made by the patients to […] DERMA 
PRIM-MK OOD, and the academy […] [therefore] […] suffered significant 
financial damage in the amount of BGN 6 485 064.81 . 
The applicant takes the view that the offence for which the corresponding criminal 
charges were brought against ZV comes within the scope of points 8 and 20 of 
Article 22(1) of the ZOPDNPI (repealed […]). 
(6) In the course of its inquiry, the Commission […] established that the person under 
inquiry, ZV, and her husband, the defendants in the present proceedings, had 
acquired shares in domestic commercial companies using funds for which no 
lawful origin had been established; … […] that the person under inquiry and her 
husband had conducted transactions for consideration for the acquisition of 
immovable property the value of which was greater than the earnings of the 
person under inquiry and the members of her family at the time of acquisition; … 
[…] that the person under inquiry and her family members held bank deposits of a 
considerable value not consistent with their legitimate earnings, and that they had 
concluded banking transactions using resources whose origin could not be 
ascertained. Based on that inquiry, the applicant takes the view that a significant 
discrepancy had been found with regard to the defendant’s assets within the 
meaning of Article 21(2) ZOPDNPI (repealed […]) […]. It claims that the total 
discrepancy between the assets and the net income amounted to 
BGN 3 069 399.16 over the entire period under review. 
(7) […] The Commission decided to bring an action before the Sofia City Court for 
the confiscation of illegally obtained assets in the amount of BGN 2 854 560.53 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2. 4. 2019 — CASE C-319/19 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
[…] from ZV and natural and legal persons presumed to be acting in conjunction 
with, or under the control of, the person under inquiry […]. 
(8) On application by the Commission […], the Sofia City Court, acting before the 
present proceedings were instituted, took measures to freeze the assets whose the 
confiscation was sought […]. 
(9) Criminal proceedings against Ms ZV […] are currently pending before the 
Sofiyski voennen sad (Sofia Military Court) […], in which the charges relate to 
the criminal offences governed by the ZOPDNPI […] (repealed […]). That case is 
at the trial stage and has not yet culminated in a final court decision. [Or. 4] 
(10) At the present time, Mrs ZV […] has no final conviction against her. 
(11) The defendants […] challenge the Commission’s requests on the ground that they 
are inadmissible because the Bulgarian law is contrary to Directive 2014/42/EU of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and 
confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union 
[…]. 
The defendants have essentially argued as follows: 
[…]The directive was not legally transposed in Bulgaria but its provisions are 
applicable, since they are sufficiently clear and must therefore be regarded as part 
of the applicable EU law. The directive prescribes different requirements and 
imposes different conditions for the liability of the person under inquiry and third 
parties. The ZOPDNPI (repealed […]) is not applicable and directly contradicts 
the provisions of the directive. 
(12) The defendants further submit that (i) the subject matter of the proceedings 
pending before the Sofia City Court is not that of a civil case, (ii) the penalty 
against the defendants is legally classifiable as a ‘punitive measure’, (iii) the 
procedural limitations (on the procedural steps during the court proceedings, 
including during the taking of evidence) are not applicable and (iv) all the 
guarantees for persons subject to a criminal penalty as enshrined in the 
Constitution, the law and the principles on the rights of the defence under EU law 
are applicable. 
(13)They claim that it is not only in criminal proceedings that the directive is 
applicable. It was not transposed into national law in a lawful manner (in 
accordance with the standards, principles and rules of EU law). The manner of 
transposition […] excludes the procedural guarantees for defendants and third 
parties against whom the rules on the freezing and/or confiscation of illegally 
obtained assets are imposed. 
(14) The legal regime of the directive was more favourable than that of […] [the 
ZPKONPI] [..] of 19 January 2018. 
KOMISIA ZA PROTIVODEYSTVIE NA KORUPTSIATA I OTNEMANE NA NEZAKONNO PRIDOBITO IMUSHTESTVO 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW CITED [Or. 5] 
(15) In 2012, the Zakon za otnemane v polza na darzhavata na nezakonno pridobito 
imushtestvo (Law on the confiscation of illegally obtained assets, ‘the 
ZOPDNPI’) was adopted in the Republic of Bulgaria. The [ZOPDNPI] […] 
entered into force on 19 November 2012 […]. It was repealed by the Zakon za 
protivodeiystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobito 
imushtestvo (Law on the combatting of corruption and the confiscation of illegally 
obtained assets (‘the ZPKONPI’)) […] of 19 January 2018). 
(16) Pursuant to Paragraph 5(2) […] of the transitional and final provisions of the 
[ZPKONPI of 19 January 2018] […], ongoing inquiries and court proceedings in 
connection with the repealed [ZOPDNPI] […] must be completed in accordance 
with that law. 
The present proceedings were instigated during the period of application of the 
[ZOPDNPI] […] (repealed), meaning that the [ZOPDNPI] […] of 2012 is the 
applicable substantive law in the present case […]. 
(17) The purpose of both laws, both the Law of 2012 and the Law of 2018, is to 
prescribe anti-corruption measures, to prescribe the conditions and proceedings 
for confiscating illegally obtained assets and to prevent the possibility of obtaining 
and disposing of illegal assets. In accordance with Article 1(2) of the Law of 2012 
and, correspondingly, Article 5(1) of the Law of 2018, illegally obtained assets are 
assets with respect to the acquisition of which no legal source can be identified. 
The provisions of the [ZOPDNPI] […] of 2012 that are applicable to the present 
case are as follows: 
(18) Article 2 ‘The proceedings for the confiscation of illegal assets shall be conducted 
irrespective of any criminal proceedings brought against the person under inquiry 
and persons acting in conjunction with him.’ 
(19) Article 22(1) ‘The inquiry provided for in Article 21(2) shall be commenced, by 
order of the director of the relevant regional directorate, in cases where a person is 
charged with a criminal offence provided for in 
[…] 
8. Article 201 to Article 203; 
[…] [Or. 6] 
[…] 
20. Articles 282, 283 and 283а 
[…] of the Nakazatelen kodeks (Criminal code).’ 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2. 4. 2019 — CASE C-319/19 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
(2) ‘The inquiry shall be commenced even in cases where no charges have been 
brought in connection with a criminal offence within the meaning of paragraph 1 
because [the State] has refrained from bringing criminal proceedings or the 
criminal proceedings have been terminated […].’ 
[…] 
(3) ‘The inquiry shall be commenced even in cases where criminal proceedings 
in connection with an offence within the meaning of Article 1 are suspended and 
the person concerned cannot be charged […].’ 
[…] 
(20) Article 62 ‘In accordance with the provisions of this Law, illegally obtained assets 
shall be confiscated by the State.’ 
(21) Article 63(1) ‘Where it is not possible to confiscate separate assets pursuant to 
Article 62, the monetary value corresponding to it, determined on the basis of the 
market value at the time the action for confiscation is brought, shall be 
confiscated.’ 
(2) ‘The assets pursuant to Article 62 include: 
1. the personal assets of the person under inquiry; [Or. 7] 
2. the assets acquired jointly by the two spouses or cohabiting persons; 
3. the assets of minor children, and 
4. the assets of the spouse of the person under inquiry, irrespective of the 
matrimonial property regime chosen by the spouses; 
5. the assets of the person with whom the person under inquiry cohabits.’ 
(22) Article 66(1) ‘assets that the person under inquiry has transferred to a legal person 
or has deposited into a legal person’s capital in the form of a monetary or other 
contribution shall be subject to confiscation where the persons managing or 
controlling the legal person knew, or in the circumstances had reason to suspect, 
that the assets had been obtained illegally.’ 
(23) (2) ‘The illegally obtained assets of a legal person under the sole or joint control 
of the person under inquiry or of persons acting in conjunction with him shall also 
be subject to confiscation.’ 
(24) Case-law of the Bulgarian courts: 
• Judgment No 13 of 13 October 2012 of the Konstitutsionen sad 
(Constitutional Court) of the Republic of Bulgaria in constitutional law case 
No 6/2012. […] The Constitutional Court […] establishes in that judgment that 
KOMISIA ZA PROTIVODEYSTVIE NA KORUPTSIATA I OTNEMANE NA NEZAKONNO PRIDOBITO IMUSHTESTVO 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
the expression ‘illegally obtained assets’ [in the repealed ZOPDNPI] refers to the 
origin of the assets, not to a legal absence which renders the legal basis of the 
acquisition invalid and the transaction underlying the acquisition void. 
• Interpretive judgment 4/2016 of the Varhoven kassatsionen sad (Supreme 
Court of Cassation) of the Republic of Bulgaria of 7 December 2018 […] states 
that the termination of criminal proceedings in connection with a criminal offence 
referred to in Article 22(1) ZOPDNPI (repealed) […] constitutes an absolute 
procedural bar to the existence and the exercise of the right to bring an action for 
the confiscation of illegally obtained assets. 
The application of that interpretive judgment in the present case was excluded by 
the amendment introducing a new second subparagraph in Paragraph 5 […] of the 
transitional and final provisions of the [ZPKONPI of 19 January 2018]. In that 
subparagraph, the legislature stipulates that ongoing inquiries and court 
proceedings in connection with the repealed [ZOPDNPI] […] are to be completed 
in accordance with the new law […], in which it is expressly provided, in 
Article 153(6), that the termination of criminal proceedings or the force of res 
judicata of a judgment acquitting the accused of criminal offences provided for in 
Article 108(1) of the Law does not [Or. 8] constitute a legal bar to the existence 
and exercise of the right to bring an action for the confiscation of illegally 
obtained property. 
PROVISIONS OF EU LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW CITED 
(25) Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 
2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime 
in the European Union, Article 1(1), Article 4(1), Article 5, Article 6 and 
Article 8. 
(26) Framework Decision 2007/845/JHA, Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA 
of 6 October 2006, Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 
2005, Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA, Council Framework Decision 
2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003, Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA of 
26 June 2001, which provide that confiscation may take place only within the 
framework of criminal proceedings and in relation to assets which have been 
obtained by way of a criminal offence. 
(27) The 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and 
Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism and 
the 1990 Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the 
Proceeds from Crime, which require, as a mandatory condition for conducting 
confiscation proceedings, that a person must have been finally convicted of a 
criminal offence in the course of criminal proceedings. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2. 4. 2019 — CASE C-319/19 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE 
(28) The law applicable to the present case, the [ZOPDNPI] […] of 2012, contains the 
express provision that the confiscation proceedings before a civil court are not 
dependent on the criminal proceedings brought against the person under inquiry or 
persons acting in conjunction with or under the control of that person. The Law of 
2018 contains the express provision that the termination of criminal proceedings 
or the force of res judicata of a judgment acquitting the accused of criminal 
offences referred to in the provision of Article 108(1) of the Law does not 
constitute a legal bar to the existence and exercise of the right to bring an action 
for the confiscation of illegally obtained property. In keeping with that statutory 
provision, all civil proceedings falling within the scope of that law are pursued 
irrespective of whether the person under inquiry has been convicted by final 
judgment. Bulgarian case-law has established that the bringing of criminal charges 
against the person under inquiry is by itself [Or. 9] a sufficient condition for 
instituting civil-law confiscation proceedings. It is perfectly conceivable that the 
civil-law confiscation proceedings will be completed before the criminal 
proceedings in which the person concerned is tried on the charge brought against 
him. Also conceivable are circumstances in which the civil-law proceedings carry 
on even after the criminal proceedings have been terminated, or in which the 
charge setting out the offences committed has been changed in such a way that the 
new charge does not contain any offences forming the subject matter of the law, 
or in which the civil-law proceedings carry on after the criminal proceedings have 
culminated in a judgment acquitting the person of the charges brought against him 
or her. 
(29) Furthermore, the law introduced presumptions in Articles 1(2), 21(2) and 62 in 
conjunction with Article 63(2) (corresponding to Articles 5(1), 107(2) and 141 in 
conjunction with Article 142(2) of the new Law of 2018), which reverse the 
burden of proof and impose on the person concerned the burden of proving the 
legal origin of the assets acquired, and which do not require proof that is 
‘unequivocal in nature’ or ‘beyond any doubt’, but for which it is sufficient that 
there is deemed to be a high probability, that is to say ‘a reasonable suspicion that 
an asset is illegal’; the law introduced a reasonable suspicion of the illegal nature 
of the origin of the assets acquired by the person under inquiry. In this way, the 
legislature introduced presumptions whereby assets whose origin cannot be 
identified or proven are criminal in nature (Article 1(2), corresponding to 
Article 5(1) of the new law) and whereby there is a reasonable suspicion that 
assets have been obtained illegally (Article 21(2) and Article 107(2) of the new 
law); at the same time, the legislature reversed the burden of proof regarding the 
origin of the assets and the means for their acquisition and introduced ‘asset 
discrepancy’ as the sole and decisive means of proving the existence of illegally 
obtained assets. Thus, not only assets derived from a specific criminal activity or 
serious administrative offence are subject to confiscation, but also any asset whose 
origin cannot be identified or proven. Such an understanding of the legitimate 
purpose of pursuing a public interest objective extends the legislature’s purpose to 
KOMISIA ZA PROTIVODEYSTVIE NA KORUPTSIATA I OTNEMANE NA NEZAKONNO PRIDOBITO IMUSHTESTVO 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
such an extent that it leads to ambiguity, unpredictability and incompatibility with 
the requirements of the rule of law. 
(30) At the same time, Directive 2014/42/EU provides that Member States are to take 
the necessary measures to ensure that the persons affected by the measures 
provided for under that directive have the right to an effective remedy and a fair 
trial in order to uphold their rights. 
(31) The above considerations call for some clarification of the meaning of certain 
passages from the text of the directive and also [for an answer to] the question of 
whether the directive lays down limits or introduces principles that may not be 
derogated from. According to the referring court’s understanding, the presence of 
an inconsistency between the Bulgarian Law and an act of secondary EU law is a 
sufficient basis on which to seek an interpretation of the provisions of the 
aforementioned directive. [Or. 10] 
(32) Any interpretation which the Court of Justice of the European Union should give 
of the passages from the text of the directive would also be applicable to the new 
[ZPKONPI of 19 January 2018] […]. That Law has retained the principle that 
there is no connection between criminal proceedings and civil-law confiscation 
proceedings. 
(33) The present proceedings are at a stage where the court must decide whether to 
await the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against the person under inquiry, 
because it is not permitted to determine whether a criminal offence has been 
committed, or proceed with the case on the assumption that no criminal offence 
has been committed. […] The answers that the Court of Justice of the European 
Union will give to the questions raised in this order are crucial to the assessment 
of the further steps in the proceedings by the court hearing and determining the 
case in the main proceedings. 
POSITION OF THE REFERRING COURT ON THE QUESTIONS RAISED 
(34) The referring court takes the view that, although actions for the confiscation of 
assets are brought and heard in accordance with the rules of civil procedure, a 
measure for the ‘confiscation of illegally obtained property’ is in essence a 
punitive measure to which the standards of the directive are applicable. The 
evidence required cannot be reduced to the finding of a ‘significant discrepancy’ 
between the assets acquired and the legitimate income as evidenced by the person 
under inquiry. 
(35) The referring court is of the opinion that the Bulgarian law is contrary to the 
minimum guarantees laid down by Article 8(1) of Directive 2014/42/EU of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation of 
instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union. This court takes 
the view that these guarantees constitute a minimum standard from which the 
Member States may not derogate, since the principle of full protection of rights is 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2. 4. 2019 — CASE C-319/19 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
applicable to those guarantees. In this sense, the Bulgarian law goes beyond the 
scope permitted by the directive, to the extent that a person convicted of a 
criminal offence can benefit from the more extensive guarantees of the directive 
and the higher standard of proof for charges brought in criminal proceedings, 
whereas a person against whom criminal proceedings have not been concluded by 
a conviction or against whom no criminal proceedings have been instituted (in the 
case of a third party) cannot benefit from such guarantees. This is because, in this 
respect, rules on evidence have been laid down which deviate from the 
requirement that the competent national authority which initiated the confiscation 
or freezing provide evidence in a complete and unconditional manner. The 
legislature has established presumptions that make it difficult to protect the person 
concerned. The provisions of the directive have not been correctly transposed into 
Bulgarian law, since the procedural guarantees for the defendants and for third 
parties subject [Or. 11] to the rules on the freezing and/or confiscation of illegally 
obtained assets were excluded, thus introducing a disproportionate burden to the 
detriment of the person concerned, which constitutes an infringement of the 
requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the ECHR and Article 48(1) and (2) 
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
(36) In the light of the foregoing considerations and pursuant to the power provided for 
in Article 267 TFEU, the Sofiyski gradski sad (City Court, Sofia) makes the 
following: 
ORDER 
The present court requests the Court of Justice of the European Union, in 
accordance with the procedure set out in Article 267 TFEU, to give a ruling on the 
following questions: 
1. Does the confiscation of illegally obtained assets constitute a punitive 
measure for the purposes of Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of 
instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union or a measure under 
civil law if: 
A) the objective of the confiscation of assets as declared by national law is 
general prevention, that is to say the prevention of the possibility of obtaining and 
disposing of assets illegally, whereby confiscation is not conditional on the 
commission of a crime or other offence or on a direct or indirect connection 
between the offence and the assets obtained; 
B) the confiscation threatens not an individual asset, but (i) the total assets of 
the person under inquiry, (ii) property rights of third persons (natural and legal) 
acquired by the person under inquiry, whether for consideration or not, and (iii) 
property rights of the contracting partners of the person under inquiry and of the 
third parties; 
KOMISIA ZA PROTIVODEYSTVIE NA KORUPTSIATA I OTNEMANE NA NEZAKONNO PRIDOBITO IMUSHTESTVO 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
(C) the only condition for confiscation is the introduction of an irrebuttable 
presumption of the unlawfulness of all the assets for which no legal origin has 
been identified (without a previously established definition of ‘legal/illegal 
origin’); 
(D) in the absence of proof of the origin of the acquisition of assets by the 
person under inquiry, the law governing the lawfulness of the acquired assets is 
revised with retroactive effect for a period of ten years for all the persons 
concerned (person under inquiry, third parties and their contracting partners in the 
past), whereby at the time of acquisition of the specific property right there was no 
statutory obligation to provide such proof? 
2. Must the minimum standards of guaranteed rights of owners and third 
parties contained in Article 8 of Directive 2014/42/ЕU be interpreted as permitting 
national law and case-law which prescribe confiscation without it being necessary 
to satisfy the conditions laid down for that purpose in Articles 4, 5 and 6 of that 
directive if the criminal proceedings [Or. 12] against the person concerned have 
been terminated (as confirmed by the court) owing to the absence of a criminal 
offence or the person has been acquitted owing to the absence of a criminal 
offence? 
3. In particular, must Article 8 of Directive 2014/42/ЕU be interpreted as 
meaning that the guarantees contained in that provision for the rights of a 
convicted person whose assets are subject to confiscation are also applicable in a 
case such as that in the present proceedings which runs in parallel with and 
independently of the criminal proceedings? 
4. Are the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 48(1) of the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the guarantee of the rights of the 
defence enshrined in Article 48(2) of the Charter and the principle of effectiveness 
to be interpreted as allowing national legislation such as that at issue in the main 
proceedings which: 
• introduces a presumption for the criminal nature of assets of unknown or 
unproven origin (Article 1(2) of the Zakon za otnemane v polza na darzhavata na 
nezakonno pridobito imushtestvo [otm.] (Law on the confiscation of illegally 
obtained assets (repealed), ‘ZOPDNPI’); 
• introduces a presumption of reasonable suspicion that assets have been 
obtained illegally (Article 21(2) ZOPDNPI, repealed); 
• reverses the burden of proof regarding the origin of the assets and the means 
of acquiring them not only for the person under inquiry, but also for third parties, 
who must prove the origin not of their assets but of those of their legal 
predecessor, even in cases where the assets are acquired for no consideration; 
• introduces ‘asset discrepancy’ as the sole and decisive means of proving the 
existence of illegally obtained assets; 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 2. 4. 2019 — CASE C-319/19 
 
12  
Anonymised version 
• reverses the burden of proof for all persons concerned, and not only for the 
convicted person, even before, or irrespective of, the conviction; 
• allows the application of a methodology for legal and financial investigation 
and analysis by means of which the suspicion of the illegal nature of the relevant 
assets and the value of the assets are determined, and that suspicion is binding on 
the adjudicating court without the latter being able to exercise full judicial control 
over the content and application of that methodology? 
5. Must Article 5(1) of Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of 
instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union be interpreted as 
allowing national law to replace a reasonable suspicion (on the basis of the facts 
and circumstances gathered in the proceedings and assessed by the court) that the 
assets were obtained by means of a criminal offence with a suspicion 
(presumption) of the illegality of the origin of the increase in assets which is based 
solely on the established circumstance that the increase is higher than a value 
referred to in the national law (for example, EUR 75 000 in ten years)? 
6. Must the right to property, as a general principle of EU law enshrined in 
Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be 
interpreted as allowing national legislation such as that at issue in the main 
proceedings which: 
• introduces an irrebuttable presumption regarding the content and scope of 
the illegally obtained assets (Article 63(2) ZOPDNPI, repealed); [Or. 13] 
• introduces an irrebuttable presumption of the invalidity of transactions 
acquiring or disposing of assets (Article 65 ZOPDNPI, repealed) or 
• restricts the rights of third parties holding or asserting independent rights to 
assets subject to confiscation by means of the procedure for notifying them of the 
case, as provided for in Article 76(1) ZOPDNPI (repealed)? 
7. Do the provisions of Article 6(2) and Article 8(1) to (10) of Directive 
2014/42/ЕU have direct effect in so far as they provide guarantees and safeguard 
clauses for the persons affected by the confiscation or for bona fide third parties? 
The proceedings [in the case] are stayed […] until the conclusion of the procedure 
under Article 267 TFEU. 
[…]