Published on 8 January 2024
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 11917/21
Iliya Kostov BOYDEV
against Bulgaria
lodged on 22 February 2021
communicated on 15 December 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the forfeiture of a vehicle and a trailer belonging to the applicant in the context of administrative-penal proceedings.
In 2018 the applicant was assigned to transport detergent products from abroad, using his own vehicle. Customs check-up revealed that he was in fact carrying forbidden goods - insecticides. A criminal investigation was open against him which was eventually terminated as it could not be established whether he was aware of the content of the truckload. Following the termination of the criminal case, the custom authorities issued a penal order against an unknown perpetrator, thereby confiscating the truck and the trailer of the applicant which had been used for the commission of the offence. The applicant appealed against the penal order. In a final decision dated 25 October 2020, the Haskovo Administrative Court rejected his appeal as inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had no legal standing under the domestic law to challenge it.
The applicant 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 he had no opportunity under domestic law to challenge the forfeiture of his property and that, as a result, he suffered an excessive individual burden.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the forfeiture by the authorities of the truck and the trailer belonging to the applicant amount to an interference with his 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 could effectively challenge the forfeiture (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 have effective access to a court, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to challenge the forfeiture?
3. Did the applicant have at his 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?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy