issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 048 (2023)
14.02.2023
Judgments of 14 February 2023
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments1:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below;
three Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, can
be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgments summarised below are available only in English.
Just Satisfaction
Avendi OOD v. Bulgaria (application no. 48786/09)
The applicant company, Avendi OOD, is a Bulgarian limited-liability company based in Sofia which
trades in alcoholic beverages.
The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint that the authorities failed to comply with a
final domestic court decision ordering the return of its merchandise, which had been seized as
evidence in criminal proceedings.
In January 2005 the Varna regional police carried out a search-and-seizure operation at a warehouse
where merchandise belonging to the applicant company was stored. The police seized a number of
bottles, of which 26,748 were bottles of Baileys cream liqueur belonging to the applicant company
as evidence in ongoing criminal proceedings against a certain M.M. and S.S. who were suspected of
storing merchandise subject to excise duty without the mandatory stamps. M.M. and S.S. were
subsequently acquitted and the Varna District Court ordered the return of the seized bottles to the
applicant company. The court’s decision became final in December 2005.
However, the investigative and tax authorities continued to retain the bottles pending parallel
proceedings against the applicant company for storing merchandise without the mandatory excise
duty stamps and against an importing company and its representative for selling the beverages to
the applicant company without the mandatory excise duty stamps. All the bottles were eventually
returned to the applicant company in March 2007, by which time the shelf life of the bottles of
liqueur had expired.
The applicant company lodged a claim for damages against the State, requesting that it be awarded
compensation for damage and lost profits, but the claim was unsuccessful.
The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European
satisfaction as regards pecuniary damage. It rejected the applicant company’s claims in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
Today’s judgment concerned the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the
European Convention as regards pecuniary damage.
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
