THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SABOUNI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
(Applications nos. 25795/15 and 59286/16)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
2 March 2023
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sabouni and Others v. Bulgaria,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Darian Pavli, President,
 Ioannis Ktistakis,
 Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 February 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the dates indicated in the appended table
2. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant factual details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the forfeiture of their assets alleged to be the proceeds of crime. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of Protocol No. 1
6. The applicants complained of the forfeiture of alleged proceeds of crime. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems 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.”
7. The Court recently adopted a leading judgment against Bulgaria on the forfeiture of proceeds of crime under the same legislation as applied in the case at hand, namely the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 (hereinafter “the 2005 Act”) – see Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, 13 July 2021). The Court identified some potential flaws in the 2005 Act and in the manner in which it had been applied, in particular the combined effect of the wide scope of its application – as to predicate crimes and as to the periods for which the defendants’ revenues and expenses were being checked, of the difficulties for defendants to prove what the courts considered “lawful” income during such a period, marked, moreover, by inflation and economic changes, and of the presumption that any asset not shown to have had a “lawful” provenance was the proceed of crime (see Todorov and Others, cited above, §§ 200-09). The Court’s position was that, while these potential flaws were not sufficient to render each forfeiture under the 2005 Act contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they certainly placed a considerable burden on defendants in forfeiture proceedings and could tilt the balance in favour of the State. Thus, as a counterbalance and a guarantee of the applicants’ rights, it was crucial that the national courts provided in their decisions some particulars as to the criminal conduct in which the assets to be forfeited were alleged to have originated, and showed, in a reasoned manner, that those assets could have been the proceeds of such criminal conduct (ibid., §§ 210-15). 8. Applying these requirements to the specific cases examined in the leading judgment, the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in those of them where the national courts had failed to justify the existence of the causal link defined above, and had ordered forfeiture relying on the presumption contained in the 2005 Act and on discrepancies between the applicants’ expenses and their “lawful” income during the relevant periods (see §§ 217-50 of the judgment). On the other hand, the Court found no violation in the cases where such a causal link had been shown to exist, and where the domestic courts had established in a reasonable manner that the assets for which forfeiture was being sought were the proceeds of crime (see §§ 251-81). 9. In the present case, the Government argued that, as in the cases examined in Todorov and Others where no violation of the applicants’ rights had been found, the domestic courts had performed the necessary analysis and had “clearly established” a causal link between “criminal activity” of the applicants (Mr Sabouni in application no. 25795/15 and Mr Krastev in application no. 59286/16) and the assets to be forfeited. 10. The Court, however, is not satisfied that this was the case. In both applications under examination the defendants’ established “criminal conduct” amounted to one-off offences, which do not appear to have yielded any financial gain. Moreover, in the case of Mr Sabouni and other applicants (application no. 25795/15) the offence had been committed in 2009, while the authorities examined the applicants’ financial situation as of 1993 – a period set with regard to a previous prosecution, and in the case of the applicants Krastevi (application no. 59286/16) it was expressly stated by the criminal courts that Mr Krastev had had no other “anti-social behaviour”. In this situation the Court does not consider that the authorities provided any relevant particulars as to criminal conduct which could have generated the alleged proceeds of crime, as was required in Todorov and Others (cited above). Nor did they show in a reasoned and adequate manner that the particular assets under examination could have been the proceeds of crime: they merely referred in that regard to the potential of offences of the type committed by Mr Sabouni and Mr Krastev to yield financial gain, and to the discrepancies established between the applicants’ expenses and what was considered “lawful” income. While the Court stated in Todorov and Others (cited above, § 216) that in such type of cases it would generally defer to the national courts’ assessment as to the existence of a causal link between any criminal conduct of the applicants and the assets subject to forfeiture, in the particular case the reasons provided to substantiate such a link are clearly insufficient. 11. 1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation