I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in APOSTOLOVI v. BULGARIA.

Information

• Judgment date: 2019-11-07
• Communication date: 2017-12-13
• Application number(s): 32644/09
• Country:   BGR
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 13, P1-1
• Conclusion:
  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria
  (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded
  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions)
  Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
  Just satisfaction)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.582008
• Prediction: No violation

• Inconsistent

Communication text used for prediction

1.
The applicants, Mr Stoyan Todorov Apostolov and Mrs Milena Georgieva Apostolova, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1956 and 1958 respectively and live in Haskovo.
They are represented before the Court by Ms E. Nedeva, a lawyer practising in Plovdiv.
A.
The circumstances of the case 2.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants and established by the Court of its own motion on the basis of publicly available documents, may be summarised as follows.
3.
The applicants are spouses.
The first applicant, Mr Apostolov, used to be a public prosecutor but was at the relevant time a lawyer in private practice.
The applicants have three children.
The third, a son born in 1989, suffers from a number of congenital disorders.
He has been declared 100% disabled and is in receipt of an invalidity pension, whose monthly amount in the second half of 2008 was 164.03 Bulgarian levs (BGN).
He requires constant medical treatment and personal care.
1.
The criminal proceedings against Mr Apostolov 4.
Following complaints by a number of people, on 29 March 2007 the Haskovo regional prosecutor’s office opened a preliminary investigation with respect to Mr Apostolov and an alleged accomplice on suspicion that they had been carrying out banking business without a licence, contrary to Article 252 § 1 of the 1968 Criminal Code.
5.
On 17 July 2007 the applicants’ home and Mr Apostolov’s office were searched on the basis of a judicial warrant obtained by the investigating authorities on 12 July 2007.
The authorities seized a number of deeds, bank statements and promissory notes.
6.
On 17 November 2008 Mr Apostolov and his alleged accomplice were charged.
Mr Apostolov was accused of carrying out banking business without a licence and thereby causing others significant damage and obtaining unlawful earnings, contrary to Article 252 § 2 of the Criminal Code – an offence carrying a penalty of (a) five to ten years’ imprisonment, (b) a fine of BGN 5,000 to 10,000; and (c) confiscation of some or all of the perpetrator’s assets.
It was alleged that Mr Apostolov had caused nine people a total loss of BGN 116,030 and that he had unlawfully earned BGN 187,250.
He was placed under bail and banned from leaving the country.
7.
On an unknown date in 2009 the prosecuting authorities indicted Mr Apostolov and his co-accused.
8.
After examining the case at twenty-one hearings, on 9 November 2012 the Haskovo Regional Court found Mr Apostolov guilty of carrying out banking business without a licence between 2002 and 2006, jointly with his co-accused, and thereby causing five people damage adding up BGN 12,408 and obtaining unlawful earnings in the amount of BGN 51,368.
The court acquitted him with respect to the remainder of the damage and earnings alleged by the prosecuting authorities.
It sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, suspended, and a fine of BGN 3,000.
It also ordered Mr Apostolov and his co-accused jointly to pay the State treasury BGN 29,440 and Mr Apostolov personally to pay the State treasury BGN 21,928 by way of forfeiture under Article 53 § 2 (b) of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 34 below).
Lastly, it ordered Mr Apostolov to pay BGN 2,000, plus interest, in damages to two civil claimants.
The court also partly upheld the charges against Mr Apostolov’s co-accused (see прис.
No 238 от 09.11.2012 г. по н. о. х. д.
No 472/2009 г., ОС-Хасково).
9.
The prosecution, Mr Apostolov, his co-accused and the two civil claimants (who were also private prosecuting parties) all appealed against that judgment.
The prosecution’s appeal only concerned sentence, and the civil claimants’ appeal only concerned sentence and the quantum of the award of damages.
Having heard the appeals on 14 March 2013, on 28 March 2013 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and referred the case back to the prosecuting authorities.
It first noted that the partial acquittal of Mr Apostolov and his co-accused had not been appealed against and was therefore final.
It went on to say that the appeals of Mr Apostolov and his co-accused, which concerned the remainder of the lower court’s judgment, were well-founded, as the proceedings below had been tainted by a serious procedural irregularity.
The indictment was unclear and internally inconsistent in various respects, which had brought about confusion about the subject matter of the case and had reflected on the lower court’s findings.
The lower court had obviously spotted the problem but had nevertheless proceeded to judgment.
It was therefore necessary to quash that judgment and refer the case back to the prosecuting authorities for them to draw up a proper indictment (see реш.
No 66 от 28.03.2013 г. по в. н. о. х. д.
No 20/2013 г., АС-Пловдив).
10.
On 2 July 2013 the prosecuting authorities submitted to the Haskovo Regional Court an amended indictment.
On 10 October 2013 the judge‐rapporteur returned the indictment to the prosecuting authorities with instructions to correct various irregularities in it.
The prosecuting authorities appealed against that decision, and on 18 November 2013 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal quashed it, finding that the prosecuting authorities had sufficiently complied with the instructions given in the judgment of 28 March 2013 (see опр.
No 266 от 18.11.2013 г. по ч. н. д.
No 443/2013 г., АС-Пловдив).
11.
Mr Apostolov was then re-tried, but the civil claims against him were not taken up for examination.
On 10 March 2016 the Haskovo Regional Court again found him guilty of carrying out banking business without a licence between 2002 and 2006 (in relation to three loans which he had made alone and five loans which he had made jointly with his co-accused) and thereby causing three people damage adding up BGN 7,000 and obtaining unlawful earnings in the amount of BGN 44,640, contrary to Article 252 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
The court sentenced Mr Apostolov to one year’s imprisonment, suspended.
In fixing the custodial sentence below the statutory minimum and opting not to impose a fine or order confiscation, as possible under Article 252 § 2, the court had regard, in particular, to the disability of Mr Apostolov’s son and the excessive duration of the criminal proceedings against him (see прис.
No 10 от 10.03.2016 г. по н. о. х. д.
No 594/2013 г., ОС-Хасково).
12.
It appears that that judgment was appealed against and that the case is now pending before the Plovdiv Court of Appeal.
2.
The freezing of the applicants’ assets 13.
Following a request by the prosecuting authorities under Article 72 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 35 below), on 28 November 2008 the Haskovo Regional Court ordered the freezing of thirty-five bank accounts opened in the name of Mr Apostolov and three immovable properties belonging to him.
The court noted that the offence of which he stood accused was punishable with a fine and confiscation.
It went on to say that Mr Apostolov’s having been charged was enough to consider the charges as likely well-founded.
There was furthermore evidence that the bank accounts and properties belonged to him.
It was necessary to freeze them to secure the enforcement of the possible fine and confiscation (see опр.
No 279 от 28.11.2008 г. по гр.
д.
No 434/2008 г., ОС-Хасково).
14.
On 31 March 2009 both applicants asked Haskovo Regional Court to unfreeze the assets.
Mrs Apostolova argued that by law half of sums in the bank accounts and half of the immovable properties were hers, in her capacity as Mr Apostolov’s spouse, and could not therefore lawfully be frozen, since she was not subject to criminal charges.
For his part, Mr Apostolov argued that, since he had no other sources of income, the impossibility to use his bank accounts placed in danger the life of his severely disabled son.
15.
On 8 May 2009 the Haskovo Regional Court rejected the requests.
It held that the need for the assets to remain frozen was still in place, as the criminal proceedings against Mr Apostolov were ongoing, and that Mrs Apostolova’s arguments had to be made in the proceedings in which the competent bailiff and property-registration judge had enforced the freezing order (see опр.
от 08.05.2009 г. по ч. н. д.
No 434/2008 г., ОС‐Хасково).
16.
Following appeals by the applicants, on 29 July 2009 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal partly quashed that decision.
It agreed that the need for the assets to remain frozen was still in place, and added that the medical conditions of the applicants’ son were irrelevant for assessing that point.
However, it disagreed with the lower court that Mrs Apostolova’s argument was irrelevant in those proceedings, and went on to say only the half of the assets which belonged to Mr Apostolov could lawfully be frozen, since no charges had been brought against Mrs Apostolova.
It therefore unfroze the half of the assets belonging to her (see опр.
No 157 от 29.07.2009 г. по в. ч. н. д.
No 319/2009 г., АС-Пловдив).
17.
On an unknown date in the late summer of 2013 Mr Apostolov asked the Haskovo Regional Court to unfreeze fully his bank accounts and two of the immovable properties, and to unfreeze partly the third immovable property.
18.
On 14 October 2013 a civil judge of the Haskovo Regional Court partly allowed the request and unfroze the bank accounts (see опр.
No 345 от 14.10.2013 г. по ч. н. д.
434/2008 г., ОС-Хасково).
Following an appeal by Mr Apostolov, that decision was quashed by the Plovdiv Court of Appeal on the basis that it had been taken by an incompetent judge, and the matter was referred to the panel trying the criminal case against Mr Apostolov (see опр.
No 270 от 28.11.2013 г. по в. ч. н. д.
No 467/2013 г., ПАС).
19.
In a bench ruling of 16 January 2014 that panel decided to unfreeze all of Mr Apostolov’s assets save for one of his immovable properties.
It held that even though the criminal proceedings against him were ongoing and there was still a risk that he might dissipate his assets, it could not be overlooked that the proceedings had begun in 2007 and that his assets had been frozen as far back as 2008, and that he could thus not use the money in his bank accounts in spite of the obvious need flowing from the serious medical conditions of his son.
Another factor to be borne in mind was the maximum amount of the fine and confiscation which could be imposed on him on conviction.
3.
Mrs Apostolova’s claims for damages against the authorities (a) The claim against the Haskovo Regional Court 20.
On an unknown date in 2010 Mrs Apostolova brought a claim for non-pecuniary damages under section 49 of the Obligations and Contracts Act 1950 (see paragraphs 45 and 46 below) against the Haskovo Regional Court.
Since none of the judges in that court could deal with the case, it was transferred to the Kardzhali Regional Court.
21.
On 17 May 2011 the Kardzhali Regional Court dismissed the claim, holding that courts could not incur liability under section 49 of the 1950 Act in relation to decisions by the judges serving on them (see реш.
No 183 от 17.05.2011 г. по гр.
д.
No 229/2010 г., ОС-Кърджали).
22.
Mrs Apostolova appealed, and on 31 October 2011 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.
It held that although she had no doubt suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the freezing of her assets, the lower court had been correct to hold that courts could not incur liability under section 49 of the 1950 Act in relation to decisions by the judges serving on them (see реш.
No 487 от 31.10.2011 г. по гр.
д.
No 857/2011 г., АС-Пловдив).
23.
Mrs Apostolova appealed on points of law.
Finding that the appeal raised an important question relating to the application of section 49 of the 1950 Act, the Supreme Court of Cassation admitted it for examination (see опр.
No 971 от 07.08.2012 г. по гр.
д.
No 93/2012 г., ВКС, IV г.
о.).
On 14 June 2013 it upheld the Plovdiv Court of Appeal’s judgment.
It held that whenever the State’s liability could not be engaged under the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (see paragraphs 43 and 44 below), it could be engaged under section 49 of the 1950 Act.
It went on to say that liability in damages in relation to the freezing of assets ordered by a court at the instance of a State authority or entity laid with that authority or entity, in line with the general rule in civil proceedings that liability for damages in such cases was on the party at whose instance the freezing had been ordered (see реш.
No 110 от 14.06.2013 г. по гр.
д.
No 93/2012 г., ВКС, IV г.
о.).
(b) The first claim against the Prosecutor’s Office 24.
In line with the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Cassation, on 5 September 2013 Mrs Apostolova brought a claim for damages under section 49 of the 1950 Act (see paragraphs 45 and 46 below) against the Prosecutor’s Office.
She alleged that she had suffered non-pecuniary damage to the tune of BGN 50,000, but that for the time being she only claimed BGN 2,000, plus interest running from 28 November 2008.
25.
On 6 January 2014 the Haskovo District Court allowed the claim in full.
It held that even though there was no direct evidence on the point, it could be accepted that Mrs Apostolova had suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the freezing of her assets, which had made it harder for her to take care of her severely disabled son.
The prosecutor’s request to freeze her assets had been wrongful and had directly caused her that damage.
Under section 45(2) of the Act (see paragraph 46 below), the fault of the prosecutor who had sought the freezing had to be presumed.
In any event, the prosecutor had been bound to check the ownership of the assets whose freezing she had requested.
In view of the duration of the freezing and the medical conditions of Mrs Apostolova’s son, the appropriate award was BGN 5,000.
Since she had sought less than that, her claim was to be allowed in full (see реш.
No 15 от 06.01.2014 г. по гр.
д.
No 2505/2013 г., РС-Хасково).
26.
The Prosecutor’s Office appealed, and on 29 May 2014 the Haskovo Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment.
It gave nearly the same reasons, but also expressly stated that by requesting the freezing of assets not belonging to the accused – Mr Apostolov – the prosecutor had acted wrongfully (see реш.
No 257 от 29.05.2014 г. по гр.
д.
No 260/2014 г., ОС‐Хасково).
27.
That judgment was not subject to appeal.
On 16 December 2014 the Prosecutor’s Office paid Mrs Apostolova the sum awarded to her.
(c) The second claim against the Prosecutor’s Office 28.
On 10 February 2015 Mrs Apostolova brought a second claim under section 49 of the 1950 Act against the Prosecutor’s Office.
She again stated that she estimated her non-pecuniary damage to amount to BGN 50,000, but that for the time being she only claimed BGN 5,000.
29.
On 9 June 2015 the Haskovo District Court dismissed the claim.
It started by stating that the claim was in principle well-founded, and that, for the same reasons as those given in the previous proceedings against the Prosecutor’s Office, it estimated that the non-pecuniary damage suffered by Mrs Apostolova was BGN 5,000.
This meant that, if the BGN 2,000 awarded in those proceedings were to be deducted, she was still entitled to BGN 3,000.
The claim was, however, time-barred.
The court analysed in detail the applicable statutory provisions and case-law, and held that the relevant five-year limitation period has started to run on the date when the Haskovo Regional Court had ordered the freezing of the assets – 28 November 2008 – and had thus expired on 28 November 2013.
By law, the bringing of a partial claim did not stop the running of time with respect to the remainder.
Even if the period of time during which the first claim for damages against the Prosecutor’s Office had been pending was to be discounted, the limitation period had expired on 22 August 2014, whereas the second claim had been brought on 10 February 2015 (see реш.
No 332 от 09.06.2015 г. по гр.
д.
No 319/2015 г., РС-Хасково).
30.
It is unclear whether Mrs Apostolova appealed against that judgment.
B.
Relevant domestic law and practice 1.
Relevant provisions of the Criminal Code (a) Assets exempt form confiscation or the enforcement of a fine 31.
By Article 45 § 2 of the 1968 Criminal Code, funds needed by the convict for the upkeep of his or her family for a period of one year are not subject to confiscation.
The former Supreme Court has held that this prohibition is not only for the benefit of the accused but also for that of the members of his or her family (see реш.
No 109 от 28.12.1987 г. по н. д.
No 103/1987 г., ВС, ОСНК).
32.
By Article 47 § 3 of the same Code, a fine cannot be enforced against items which are not subject to confiscation.
33.
In a 2015 decision (опр.
No 12 от 12.01.2015 г. по в. ч. н. д.
No 1146/2014 г., САС), the Sofia Court of Appeal held that the exemptions set out in those two provisions were irrelevant in asset-freezing proceedings under Article 72 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 35 below).
(b) Forfeiture of the proceeds of crime 34.
By Article 53 § 2 (b) of the 1968 Criminal Code, on conviction, regardless of the main penalty, the proceeds of the offence are liable to forfeiture, unless subject to restitution.
2.
Freezing of assets with a view to securing a criminal fine, confiscation or forfeiture (a) Competence to order freezing and prerequisites for the measure 35.
By Article 72 § 1 of the 2005 Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecuting authorities may ask the competent first-instance court to take measures to secure the fine, confiscation or forfeiture which may be ordered in criminal proceedings.
By Article 72 § 2, if the criminal proceedings have reached the trial stage, competence to take such measures rests with the trial court.
36.
In an interpretative decision given in 2012 to put an end to divergent case-law of the lower courts under that Article, the Plenary Meeting of the Supreme Court of Cassation’s Criminal Chambers held, inter alia, that (a) when examining a request by the prosecuting authorities to freeze assets under that Article, the courts must check whether there is a reasonable suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, and that it is not sufficient to rely on the prosecuting authorities’ decision to charge him or her; (b) only assets belonging to someone who has already been charged with an offence punishable with confiscation or a fine can be frozen under that provision, the only exception being assets subject to forfeiture regardless of their owner; (c) the courts must examine whether the value of the assets sought to be frozen matches the quantum of the possible confiscation, fine or forfeiture; and (d) the decisions of the first-instance courts in such cases are amenable to appeal to a higher court in the manner provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure (see тълк.
реш.
No 2 от 11.10.2012 г. по тълк.
д.
No 1/2012 г., ВКС, ОСНК).
(b) Maximum duration 37.
The Sofia Court of Appeal has held that assets frozen under Article 72 of the 2005 Code must normally remain so until the criminal proceedings have come to an end, and that the only situation in which they could be unfrozen earlier is in case of expiry of the time-limit under Article 234 § 8 of the same Code (see опр.
No 170 от 10.08.2012 г. по в. ч. н. д.
No 797/2012 г., САС).
38.
That provision says all coercive measures taken with respect to the accused – which includes asset freezing under Article 72 – have to be rescinded by the prosecuting authorities if a certain period of time has elapsed since the accused has been charged.
The Sofia Court of Appeal has, however, held that if the assets have been frozen later than at the time of charging, the time-limit runs from that later date (see опр.
No 403 от 29.12.2014 г. по в. ч. н. д.
No 1180/2014 г., САС).
Originally, the time-limit was two years in cases of offences punishable with more than five years’ imprisonment, and one year in all other cases.
In August 2013 these were shortened to one and a half years and eight months respectively.
39.
By Article 234 § 9 of the Code, if the prosecuting authorities do not unfreeze the assets after the expiry of that time-limit of their own motion, the accused may directly ask the first-instance court to do so (see опр.
No 83 от 15.03.2017 г. по в. ч. н. д.
No 256/2017 г., САС).
The court decides on the papers and its decision is not amenable to appeal (Article 234 § 10).
40.
By contrast, there is no time-limit for the application of such measures during the ensuing judicial phase of the proceedings (see опр.
No 453 от 21.07.2016 г. по в. ч. н. д.
No 387/2016 г., ПАС).
(c) Procedure 41.
For the applicable procedure, Article 72 of the 2005 Code of Criminal Procedure refers to the Code of Civil Procedure.
By Article 395 § 1 of the 2007 Code of Civil Procedure, the initial proceedings are without notice to the defendant, and by Article 395 § 2 the court decides the request on the papers.
If it issues a freezing order, it is notified to the defendant, and he or she can appeal against it within seven days of the notification (Article 396 § 1).
The appeal has no suspensive effect (Article 396 § 3).
42.
By Article 402 §§ 1 and 2 of the same Code, the freezing can be lifted at the request of the defendant, which is to be allowed if the court finds that the need for it no longer exists.
3.
Claims for damages against the authorities in relation to measures taken in criminal proceedings 43.
Section 2(1) of State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988, as originally enacted and subsequently amended, provides for strict liability of the investigating and prosecuting authorities and the courts in several situations arising in relation to criminal proceedings, none of which has to do with the freezing of assets (for details, see Tsonev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no.
9662/13, §§ 29-37, 30 May 2017).
44.
The Bulgarian courts have consistently held that the strict liability of the investigating and prosecuting authorities and the courts in relation to decisions or measures taken in relation to criminal proceedings may only be engaged with respect to the situations exhaustively listed in section 2(1) (see, among other authorities, тълк.
реш.
No 3 от 22.04.2005 г. по т. гр.
д.
No 3/2004 г., ВКС, ОСГК; реш.
No 462 от 25.07.2006 г. по гр.
д.
No 2220/2003 г., ВКС, III г. о.; реш.
No 11 от 02.02.2009 г. по гр.
д.
No 6244/2007 г., ВКС, III г. о.; реш.
No 579 от 10.12.2010 г. по гр.
д.
No 377/2009 г., ВКС, IV г. о.; реш.
No 97 от 03.05.2012 г. по гр.
д.
No 80/2011 г., ВКС, IV г. о.; реш.
No 157 от 08.07.2013 г. по гр.
д.
No 1268/2012 г., ВКС, III г. о.; опр.
No 474 от 28.03.2014 г. по гр.
д.
No 7338/2013 г., ВКС, III г. о.; опр.
No 30 от 12.01.2015 г. по ч. гр.
д.
No 7269/2014 г., ВКС, IV г. о.; опр.
No 264 от 27.12.2016 г. по ч. гр.
д.
No 5293/2016 г., ВКС, II г. о.; and опр.
No 359 от 10.10.2017 г. по ч. гр.
д.
No 3020/2017 г., ВКС, III г.
о.).
45.
The courts have at the same time held that in cases not covered by that provision the claim could be brought under section 49 of the Obligations and Contracts Act 1950, which lays down the general rule of the law of tort that a person who has entrusted another with a job is liable for the damage caused by that other person in the course of or in connection with the job (see, apart from the Supreme Court of Cassation’s judgment in Mrs Apostolova’s case, cited in paragraph 23 above, реш.
No 579 от 10.12.2010 г. по гр.
д.
No 377/2009 г., ВКС, IV г. о.; реш.
No 362 от 21.11.2013 г. по гр.
д.
No 92/2013 г., ВКС, IV г. о.; опр.
No 414 от 04.06.2014 г. по ч. гр.
д.
No 1827/2014 г., ВКС, IV г. о.; and опр.
No 359 от 10.10.2017 г., по ч. гр.
д.
No 3020/2017 г., ВКС, III г.
о.).
46.
Liability under section 49 of the 1950 Act is premised on the wrongfulness of the impugned conduct (see, among other authorities, реш.
No 567 от 24.11.1997 г. по гр.
д.
No 775/1996 г., ВС, петчл.
с-в; реш.
No 222 от 05.06.2012 г. по гр.
д.
No 967/2011 г., ВКС, IV г. о.; реш.
No 104 от 15.05.2014 г. по гр.
д.
No 5422/2013 г., ВКС, III г. о.; and реш.
No 43 от 4.09.2017 г. по гр.
д.
No 3143/2016 г., ВКС, III г.
о.).
It does not presuppose fault on the part of the person entrusting the job, but does presuppose fault – which by virtue of section 45(2) of the 1950 Act is presumed – on the part of the person carrying out the job (see пост.
No 7 от 29.12.1958 г. по гр.
д.
No 7/1958 г., ВС, Пл.
; пост.
No 7 от 30.12.1959 г. по гр.
д.
No 7/1959 г., ВС, Пл.
; пост.
No 9 от 28.12.1966 г. по гр.
д.
No 8/1966 г., , ВС, Пл.
; реш.
No 70 от 16.07.2009 г. по гр.
д.
No 5691/2007 г., ВКС, I г. о.; реш.
No 100 от 16.02.2010 г. по гр.
д.
No 696/2009 г., ВКС, III г. о.; реш.
No 48 от 08.02.2011 г. по гр.
д.
No 545/2010 г., ВКС, IV г. о.; and реш.
No 268 от 24.02.2016 г. по гр.
д.
No 2525/2015 г., ВКС, III г.
о.).
47.
In 2011 the Supreme Court of Cassation held that damage arising out of the retention of an item as evidence in a criminal case which had lasted longer than permitted under the Code of Criminal Procedure could be sought by way of a claim under section 49 of the 1950 Act.
It went on to find that the prosecuting authorities had seriously delayed the proceedings and had retained a car for years without really needing it as evidence, and on that basis awarded damages to the car’s owner (see реш.
No 465 от 20.12.2011 г. по гр.
д.
No 1794/2010 г., ВКС, IV г.
о.).
COMPLAINTS 48.
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 that the freezing of their assets was unlawful and unjustified.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, they further submit that it made it very hard for them to care for their disabled son.
49.
The applicants further complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy with respect to the above grievance.