- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 10,592
- 0
- 6
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Tuesday against Bulgaria in Mandev and Others v Bulgaria, a case relating to unfair and unjustified forfeiture of assets as proceeds of crime and high court fees.
In this case, the court joined five applications in a single judgment. First is the application of Mandev, who admitted to committing extortion in 2004. The second applicant, Glavchev, was convicted of sex trafficking in 2003. The third application relates to Rachevi, who was convicted of the possession of counterfeit banknotes. The fourth applicant is Marvakov, convicted for participating in an organised criminal group created for drug trafficking, and attempted drug trafficking in the same year. Finally, the fifth applicant Dimov was convicted of smuggling in 2007.
All these cases were decided in regional courts, which upon conviction, applied the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act of 2005. This permitted the State of Bulgaria to confiscate illegal assets presumed to be the proceeds of crime if no legal source for their acquisition had been established.
The court ruled a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights for forfeiture of the applicants’ assets as proceeds of crime in all cases but Glavchev and Glavchev Group OOD. This Article establishes the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions. In the four cases, the national courts did not provide evidence for a causal link between the criminal conduct of the applicants and their assets. Because of this, the ECHR found the approach of the national courts as unjustified. Specifically in the case of Glavchev, the national court did present evidence of an existing causal link, because the activity of sex trafficking could “logically be assumed” to create financial gains. Therefore, the violation of Article 1 of the Protocol does not apply to the latter application. Moreover, in all cases, the court concluded a violation of the same Article for the high fees paid by the applicants to the court.
The court’s ruling was based on the precedent case of Todorov and Others v Bulgaria in 2021. Here the ECHR identified various flaws with the Bulgarian 2005 Act and made a similar ruling of violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the convention. The Act was considered to put a significant burden on defendants in forfeiture proceedings, disregarding a causal link between assets and criminal conduct. The Act stayed in force until 2012.
The ruling included indications for Bulgaria to pay detailed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages applicable to each individual case. This demonstrates the power of the ECHR to deal with and serve justice in cases of violations of the human rights established under the convention.
The post ECHR rules against Bulgaria in forfeiture of criminal assets and high court fees case appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
In this case, the court joined five applications in a single judgment. First is the application of Mandev, who admitted to committing extortion in 2004. The second applicant, Glavchev, was convicted of sex trafficking in 2003. The third application relates to Rachevi, who was convicted of the possession of counterfeit banknotes. The fourth applicant is Marvakov, convicted for participating in an organised criminal group created for drug trafficking, and attempted drug trafficking in the same year. Finally, the fifth applicant Dimov was convicted of smuggling in 2007.
All these cases were decided in regional courts, which upon conviction, applied the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act of 2005. This permitted the State of Bulgaria to confiscate illegal assets presumed to be the proceeds of crime if no legal source for their acquisition had been established.
The court ruled a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights for forfeiture of the applicants’ assets as proceeds of crime in all cases but Glavchev and Glavchev Group OOD. This Article establishes the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions. In the four cases, the national courts did not provide evidence for a causal link between the criminal conduct of the applicants and their assets. Because of this, the ECHR found the approach of the national courts as unjustified. Specifically in the case of Glavchev, the national court did present evidence of an existing causal link, because the activity of sex trafficking could “logically be assumed” to create financial gains. Therefore, the violation of Article 1 of the Protocol does not apply to the latter application. Moreover, in all cases, the court concluded a violation of the same Article for the high fees paid by the applicants to the court.
The court’s ruling was based on the precedent case of Todorov and Others v Bulgaria in 2021. Here the ECHR identified various flaws with the Bulgarian 2005 Act and made a similar ruling of violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the convention. The Act was considered to put a significant burden on defendants in forfeiture proceedings, disregarding a causal link between assets and criminal conduct. The Act stayed in force until 2012.
The ruling included indications for Bulgaria to pay detailed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages applicable to each individual case. This demonstrates the power of the ECHR to deal with and serve justice in cases of violations of the human rights established under the convention.
The post ECHR rules against Bulgaria in forfeiture of criminal assets and high court fees case appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.