The CJEU found that the aim pursued by the Bulgarian legislation was to prevent the unlawful importation of goods to the country. However since the confiscation concerned a third party acting in a good faith, who did not know, nor could have known, that its property was used to commit an offence, such confiscation constitutes, in the light of the aim pursued, a dispropotionate and intolerable interferrence, impairing the very substance of that party's right to property. The legislation does not therefore comply with the right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter.
As regards to a remedy of the owner of the confiscated property, the CJEU noted that Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA provides for an obligation, on the part of each Member State, to take the necessary measures to ensure that persons affected by the confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of criminal offences have effective legal remedies in order to preserve their rights. Furthermore, Article 47 of the Charter provides that any person whose right and freedoms guaranteed by EU law have been violated has the right to an effective remedy before a court.
No such right to a remedy was laid down in Bulgarian law. The CJEU thus considers that a national law, which permits the confiscation, in the context of criminal proceedings, of property belonging to a third party, without them being afforded an affective remedy, is contrary to EU law.
Please see the press release for the details. The judgment is available on the CJEU website and will be uploaded to the Judicial Library on the EJN website.