Published July 19, 2022 | Version v1
Book chapter Open

In rem confiscation in EU law after the Agro in 2001 judgement. The Polish perspective

Creators

Description

In the scientific discourse on depriving illicit assets there have been disputes about the admissibility of solutions assuming the possibility of confiscating property without the prior conviction of the owner (so-called in rem confiscation) from the European law perspective. This issue was raised in the judgment of the CJEU in the case C-234/18 Agro in 2001. In this case, the CJEU found that the Bulgarian provisions on civil confiscation are in line with EU law on confiscation. This paper discusses the circumstances and consequences of the ruling of the CJEU and, in particular, the context of Bulgarian provisions on the confiscation of property, the margin of Member States appreciation in creating a non-penal (i.e. detached from the requirement of conviction) procedure for the confiscation of property in domestic law. The procedural consequences are examined from the Polish perspective, i.e. the impact of the judgment on the interpretation of provisions which govern the execution of confiscation orders issued by courts of other Member States.

Files

10 Wycichowski Kuchta In rem conviction.pdf

Files (302.9 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:ea16f649e8a5d146eab14ba26d74a0d5
302.9 kB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended)
  • Kodeks postępowania karnego (1997) [Code of Criminal Procedure], Dz.U. (1997), No 89, item 555 with subsequent amendments
  • Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property [2005] OJ L 68/49
  • Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders [2006] OJ L 328/59
  • Zakon za otnemane v polza na darzhavata na nezakono pridobito imushtestvo (2012) [Law on confiscation of illegally obtained assets in favour of the State], DV No 38, 18 May 2012
  • Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union [2014] OJ L 127/39
  • Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2016] OJ C 202/389
  • Zakon za protivodeystvie na korupsiata i za otnemane na nezakonno pridobitoto imushestvo (2018) [Law on combating corruption and confiscating illegally obtained assets], DV No 7, 19 January 2018
  • Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders [2018] OJ L 303/1
  • Case C‑439/16 PPU Milev, EU:C:2016:818
  • Case C-234/18 Agro in 2001, EU:C:2020:221
  • Case C393/19 Plovdiv, EU:C:2021:8
  • Engel and others v the Netherlands Apps nos 5100/71 and others (ECtHR, 8 June 1976)
  • Phillips v The United Kingdom App no 41087/98 (ECtHR, 5 July 2001)
  • Arcuri and others v Italy App no 52024/99 (ECtHR, 5 July 2001)
  • Riela and others v Italy App no 52439/99 (ECtHR, 4 September 2001)
  • Walsh v United Kingdom App no 43384/05 (ECtHR, 21 November 2006)
  • Silickienė v Lithuania App no 20496/02 (ECtHR, 10 April 2012) Varvara v Italy App no 17475/09 (ECtHR, 29 October 2013)
  • Dimitrovi v Bulgaria App no 12655/09 (ECtHR, 3 March 2015)
  • Gogitidze and others v Georgia App no 36862/05 (ECtHR, 12 May 2015)
  • G.I.E.M. S.R.L and others v Italy Apps nos 1828/06 and others (ECtHR, 28 June 2018)
  • Todorov and others v Bulgaria Apps nos 50705/11 and others (ECtHR, 13 July 2021)
  • Case C-234/18 Agro in 2001, EU:C:2019:920, Opinion of AG Sharpston
  • Commission, Commission Staff Working Document. 2020 Rule of Law Report. Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria. Accompanying the document 'Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions', Brussels, 30 September 2020, SWD(2020) 301 final
  • Alagna F, 'Non-conviction Based Confiscation: Why the EU Directive is a Missed Opportunity' (2015) 21 European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research
  • Boucht J, The Limits of Asset Confiscation On the Legitimacy of Extended Appropriation of Criminal Proceeds (Hart Publishing 2017)
  • Dzhekova R, 'Civil Forfeiture of Criminal Assets in Bulgaria' in C King, C Walker (eds), Dirty Assets Emerging Issues in the Regulation of Criminal and Terrorist Assets (Ashgate 2014)
  • Fernandez-Bertier M, 'The confiscation and recovery of criminal property: a European Union state of the art' (2016) 17 ERA Forum
  • Kolarov T, 'Historic analogs of civil confiscation of unexplained wealth – the case of Bulgaria' (2020) 27 Journal of Financial Crime
  • Ochnio A H, 'The problematic scope of extended confiscation in comparative perspective' (2019) 52 Nowa Kodyfikacja Prawa Karnego
  • Rui J P and Sieber U (eds), Non-Conviction-Based Confiscation in Europe (Duncker & Humblot, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht 2015)
  • Simonato M, 'Confiscation and fundamental rights across criminal and non-criminal domains' (2017) 18 ERA Forum
  • Simonato M, 'Directive 2014/42/EU and Non-Conviction Based Confiscation: A Step Forward on Asset Recovery?' (2015) 6 New Journal of European Criminal Law
  • Serwis Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, 'Konfiskata in rem – nowoczesna metoda zwalczania przestępczości zorganizowanej' <https://www.gov.pl/web/sprawiedliwosc/konfiskatain- rem--nowoczesna-metoda-zwalczania-przestepczosci-zorganizowanej> accessed 20 January 2022
  • Thavard B, 'Bulgaria's Aggressive Confiscation Regime and the Opinion of the Advocate General in Case C-234/18' <https://verfassungsblog.de/carte-blanchefor- political-abuse/> accessed 20 January 2022