THIRD SECTION
CASE OF NIKOLAEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
(Applications nos. 48806/11 and 11138/12)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
12 January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nikolaev 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, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 December 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in two 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. A list of the applicants and the relevant factual details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the forfeiture of alleged 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 the assets described in the appended table, alleged to have been the proceeds of crime. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which reads as follows:
Article 1
“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 Government, without providing any further details, invited the Court to decide the case on the basis of the leading judgment Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, 13 July 2021). 8. That judgment concerned the forfeiture of alleged 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”). 9. In Todorov and Others (cited above, §§ 200-09) the Court identified some potential flaws in the 2005 Act and in the manner in which it had been applied. It highlighted in this respect 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, the difficulties for defendants to prove what the courts considered “lawful” income during such a period, marked, moreover, by inflation and economic changes, and the presumption that any asset not shown to have had a “lawful” provenance was the proceed of crime. 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 established a causal link between the assets for which forfeiture was being sought and the criminal conduct of the defendants. The Court was prepared to defer to the national courts’ assessment as to the existence of such a link, in so far as it was not arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (ibid., §§ 210-16). 10. 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 cases where the national courts had failed to justify the existence of the causal link defined above, and had ordered forfeiture relying merely 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). 11. The applications under examination are similar. In particular, in ordering the forfeiture of the applicants’ assets the national courts did not attempt to justify the causal link required by the Court, adopting instead of that the same flawed approach that was criticised by it in the cases examined in Todorov and Others. The Court thus sees no reason to reach a conclusion different than the one in these cases. 12. 1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation