THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 53454/13
Ivo Matov ILIEV
against Bulgaria
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 March 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 August 2013,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant was represented by Ms Z. Goranova-Markova, a lawyer practising in Montana.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the forfeiture of alleged proceeds of crime were communicated to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (forfeiture of alleged proceeds of crime)
The case is of the type examined in Todorov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 50705/11 and 6 others, 13 July 2021).
Different assets of the applicant were forfeited in the domestic proceedings. Details concerning those assets, as well as the reasoning of the domestic courts, are contained in the appended table.
The Government, referring to the failure of the relevant authorities to enforce the forfeiture, also described in the table, argued that in practice the applicant had suffered no negative consequences resulting from the forfeiture orders.
The applicant, for his part, pointed out that his house had been put up for public sale after he had defaulted in his monthly payments to the bank, as a result of interim measures imposed on him in the forfeiture proceedings.
However, any such interim measures do not fall within the subject matter of the present application, as the applicant complained solely with regard to the actual forfeiture.
As observed by the Government and evident from the documents submitted by them, no assets of actual value have been taken from the applicant on the strength of the forfeiture ordered against him.
In such a case the Court finds that the forfeiture, which, as noted, the application is concerned with, did not amount to an actual interference with the applicant’s possessions. The applicant cannot therefore claim to be a victim of a violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
It follows that the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 30 March 2023.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(forfeiture of alleged proceeds of crime)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Predicate offence
Period for which the applicant’s income and expenses were checked
Forfeited assets
Reasons given by the courts
Final decision in the forfeiture proceedings
53454/13
19/08/2013
Ivo Matov ILIEV
1967
Goranova-Markova Zornitsa Vitanova
MONTANA
Final judgment of 16 May 2008 of the Montana Regional Court – the applicant was convicted of fraud committed in November-December 2006, having caused damage to the victim in the amount of BGN 10,080 (EUR 5,156).
7 January 1985 – 31 December 2007
A plot of land in the city of Montana with a house and outbuildings constructed on it; the property was significantly improved by the applicant after its purchase in 2005 and in 2008 its market value was assessed at BGN 173,920 (EUR 89,000);
The applicant’s shares in a company;
BGN 2,950 (EUR 1,508) in total, received from the sale of several cars.
The Government submitted the following information with regard to the above assets, drawn up in August 2022 by the body in charge of enforcing the forfeiture:
- the plot of land with a house, which had previously been mortgaged to secure a bank loan, was put up for public sale and sold to a third party in 2013; all proceeds from the sale were paid to the bank;
- in so far as the shares in a company were forfeited, that company had no assets and no economic activities;
- no part of the forfeited sums of money had been paid in by the applicant to the State budget; even though enforcement proceedings had been opened, the applicant had insufficient assets and had other debts.
During the period under examination the applicant and his wife had made expenses equalling 2,121 minimum monthly salaries, including for the acquisition of immoveable property, repayment of loans and daily expenses. Their lawful income for the same period amounted to the equivalent of 1,698 minimum monthly salaries.
The lack of any permanent income for the applicant and his wife, coupled with the “nature of the criminal activity” of the applicant, justified a conclusion that the assets were the proceeds of crime.
19 February 2013 – judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation