(Case C-234/18)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Komisia za protivodeystvie na koruptsiata i otnemane na nezakonno pridobito imushtestvo

Defendants: BP, AB, PB, Agro In 2001 EOOD, Acount Service 2009 EOOD, Invest Management OOD, Estate OOD, Trast Vasilevi OOD, Bromak OOD, Bromak Finance EAD, Viva Telekom Bulgaria EOOD, Balgarska Telekomunikatsionna Kompania AD, Hedge Investment Bulgaria AD, Kemira OOD, Dunarit AD, Technologichen Zentar-Institut Po Mikroelektronika AD, Evrobild 2003 EOOD, Technotel Invest AD, Ken Trade EAD, Konsult Av EOOD, Louvrier Investments Company 33 S.A, EFV International Financial Ventures Ltd, LIC Telecommunications S.A.R.L., V Telecom Investment S.C.A, V2 Investment S.A.R.L., Interv Investment S.A.R.L., Empreno Ventures S.A.R.L.

Questions referred

1.Is Article 1(1) of Directive 2014/42/EU (1) 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, which provides for the establishment of ‘minimum rules on the freezing of property with a view to possible subsequent confiscation’, to be interpreted as meaning that it permits Member States to adopt provisions on civil-law confiscation that is not based on a conviction?

2.Does it follow from Article 1(1) of 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, taking into account Article 4(1) thereof, that the institution of criminal proceedings against the person whose assets are the subject of confiscation is, of itself, a sufficient basis on which to bring and conclude civil-law confiscation proceedings?

3.Can the grounds given in Article 4(2) of 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 be interpreted broadly as permitting civil-law confiscation that is not based on a conviction?

4.Is Article 5(1) of 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and proceeds of crime in the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that a right to property may be withdrawn, as having been directly or indirectly obtained by way of a criminal offence, on the sole ground of the discrepancy between the value of a person’s assets and his lawful earnings, in the case where there is no final criminal judgment finding that the person concerned committed the criminal offence in question?

5.Is the provision contained in Article 6(1) of 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 to be interpreted as meaning that it provides for confiscation from third parties as an additional or alternative means of direct confiscation or as an additional means of extended confiscation?

6.Is the provision contained in Article 8(1) of 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 to be interpreted as meaning that it ensures the application of the presumption of innocence and prohibits confiscation that is not based on a conviction?

(1) OJ 2014 L 127, p. 39.