Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiyata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushtestvo, v BP & Others. (Non-conviction based recovery)

Case Caption:

EU Directive 2014/42

Case URL:

Not available (Unreported)

Summary Significance:

confiscation of illegally acquired assets of a person, his family members and his associates when criminal proceedings are still pending when EU Directive 2014/42 required that confiscation of assets be based on a final conviction.

Applicable laws:

Article 22(1)(8) of the Bulgarian Law on Confiscation

Brief Facts:

In July 2014, per Bulgaria Law, the Public Prosecutor’s office in Sofia, Bulgaria, informed the Bulgarian Commission for the confiscation of assets that BP, who was the chair of the supervisory board for a Bulgarian bank and several others had misappropriated bank assets to the tune of approximately € 105,000. The Commission for the Confiscation of Assets carried out its own independent investigations covering a period from 4th August 2014 to 4th August 2010. The investigations revealed evidence of misappropriation by BP and several members of his family through fictitious contracts under which BP received massive income. Following this investigation and Pursuant to Article 22(1)(8) of the Bulgarian Law on Confiscation, the Commission for the Confiscation of Assets decided on 14th May 2015 to bring civil proceedings before the Sofia City Court, Bulgaria with a view to confiscating the illegally acquired assets of BP, his family members and his associates. At this time, the criminal proceedings against BP and the other Defendants were still pending. Following an application by the Commission, the Sofia City Court adopted measures to conserve the assets in question. BP and several other Defendants asserted that the application for the confiscation of their assets was inadmissible as it was contrary to EU Directive 2014/42 which required that confiscation of assets be based on a final conviction. They also argued that there was no EU legislation concerning civil confiscation of assets, and that confiscation could only be based upon criminal confiscation. Finally, they argued that confiscation of their assets prior to conviction violated their right to the presumption of innocence. The Sofia City Court, having doubts as to the interpretation of Directive 2014/42, referred the matter to the CJEU.

Issues for Determination:

Whether EU Law, specifically the Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property, precluded member states from enacting legislation prescribing the conviction of assets following proceedings which are not subject either to a finding of a criminal offence or, a fortiori, the conviction of the persons accused of committing such an offence.

Holding:

The CJEU pointed out that Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 was only intended to compel Member States to establish uniform minimum standards for the seizure of criminally linked property in order to enable the mutual recognition of confiscation rulings made by courts during criminal processes. This does not prevent Member States from offering additional confiscation tools, such the ones used in the current case that are civil in character.

Case Download:

No file available for download

Share this page: