8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lived in Plovdiv. 9.  At the relevant time the applicant was the head of the criminal police force in one of the districts of Plovdiv. On 15 September 1999 his superior ordered an internal inquiry against him and a search of his office in connection with his alleged failure to note down a complaint concerning a serious offence. 10.  On 24 September 1999 three police officers searched the applicant’s office, including his safe. They made a record of almost all the items found in the safe and seized them, despite the applicant’s protests that some of those items – jewellery and money – were his and his family’s personal belongings which he kept in the safe because he was afraid to leave them at home. The officers refused to give the applicant a copy of the record. It is unclear whether it was presented to him for signature. 11.  On 14 February 2000 a criminal investigation was instituted in respect of the applicant on suspicion of helping offenders to evade justice and abusing his office on numerous occasions between 1997 and 1999. The Government submit, without giving further particulars as to dates, that in the course of the proceedings the authorities interviewed a total of one hundred and forty‑five witnesses; some of them had to be interviewed by delegation and some even abroad, by way of letters rogatory. 12.  On 12 June 2000 the proceedings were stayed because it was found that one witness had gone into hiding and because four other witnesses who were Greek and Turkish nationals had to be interviewed by way of letters rogatory. It appears that by that time, most other witnesses had already given evidence. 13.  In the following months the applicant made two requests for the return of the items seized from the safe. The prosecuting authorities refused, saying that those items had to be retained as real evidence in the case. In November 2000 the applicant enquired why the investigation had been stayed. 14.  The proceedings were resumed on 15 November 2002. They were again stayed between 11 April and 8 May 2003 in order to establish the whereabouts of two witnesses. 15.  On 14 May 2003 the applicant was charged with ordering, on ninety‑four occasions, his subordinates not to note down reports of criminal activity, thus preventing the prosecution of offenders. This had amounted to a breach of his duties and abuse of office. He was interviewed on 28 May and 9 and 16 June 2003. 16.  On 7 July 2003 the investigator in charge of the case decided to split the investigation against the applicant in two: one investigation for abuse of office and another for helping offenders to evade justice. 17.  In the following months, acting within the context of the latter investigation, the investigator interviewed the applicant, his son and wife, an acquaintance of the applicant, the officers who had carried out the search in the applicant’s office, other police officers, and three persons who had previously been victims of offences. His questions concerned, inter alia, the origin of the items found in the safe. The investigator also ordered the Plovdiv police to interview twenty‑four alleged offenders whose offences the applicant was being suspected of having covered up. The investigator in addition organised two confrontations between the applicant and one of the police officers who had carried out the search in his office. On 12 November 2003 the investigator asked two of the persons who had previously been victims of offences whether they could identify any of the items. The first one did not identify any, but the second identified a gold ring, and the same day the investigator handed it over to her. The investigator also obtained two expert reports on the genuineness of a number of bank notes found in the safe, and an expert report on the market value of certain items of jewellery also found in the safe. 18.  On 7 January 2004 the investigator proposed that the investigation be discontinued. 19.  On 11 February 2004 a prosecutor of the Plovdiv Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office agreed with the proposal and discontinued the investigation, citing insufficient evidence. He decided to return to the applicant a pistol, munitions, an air rifle, a baseball bat, binoculars, a gold ring and a pair of earrings in respect of which there existed evidence that they belonged to him and his family. He decided to forfeit 6,360 German marks (DM), 898 United States dollars (USD), 450,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL) and 700 new Bulgarian levs (BGN), as well as eleven gold rings, two gold necklaces and two gold bracelets, all found in the applicant’s safe, because he found that their origin could not be established. The applicant’s assertion that some of the German marks and the United States dollars were his, acquired as a result of the sale of real property and a car, was not supported by evidence. According to the prosecutor, neither could the applicant prove, by producing documents showing their origin, that DM 1,500 belonged to his son, as claimed by him. The origin of the jewellery was likewise uncertain. The applicant’s assertion that it belonged to his wife had not been made out, because, when interviewed, his wife had failed to describe its characteristic features, and another witness – one of the officers carrying out the search in the applicant’s office – had said that during the search the applicant had conceded that it belonged to victims of crime. On the other hand, several years had passed and the owners of those items had not come forward to claim them. The prosecutor did not cite the provision on which the forfeiture was based. 20.  The applicant sought judicial review of the prosecutor’s decision, arguing that the proceedings should have been discontinued not on account of the lack of sufficient evidence but on account of the lack of any criminal activity. He also argued that the forfeiture was unlawful and unjustified because, in concluding that the forfeited items were not his or his family’s, the prosecutor had disregarded his statements and had given undue weight to the officers’ statements. He asked the court to vary the prosecutor’s decision or order an additional investigation, in which he, his wife and his son could be questioned again in order to describe the jewellery in detail and provide further particulars. His wife’s mother could be interviewed for that purpose as well. 21.  After examining the application in private and on the papers, on 11 March 2004 the Plovdiv Military Court refused to vary the grounds for the discontinuance of the proceedings or to set the forfeiture aside. It summarised in detail the findings of fact made by the prosecutor. It found no substance in the applicant’s assertion that part of the money found in the safe had been acquired as a result of the sale of real property and a car, because the applicant had not produced documents proving such transactions. However, it noted that a witness interviewed during the investigation had said he had bought a car from the applicant, paying him DM 2,000 (one note of DM 500, two notes of DM 200, and the rest in DM 100 notes). That, coupled with the applicant’s assertion that a DM 200 note in the safe came from that transaction, showed that it indeed belonged to the applicant. As for the DM 1,500 alleged to belong to the applicant’s son, the two of them had made diverging statements during the investigation in respect of that money and had failed to produce evidence showing its origin. The same went for the USD 898, and for a gold necklace. As for the rings and the other jewellery, the applicant had stated during the search that he had seized them from offenders. No evidence had been gathered about their origin during the investigation, and the applicant’s wife had failed to describe them in detail. 22.  As a result of the court’s ruling, on 15 March 2004 the same prosecutor of the Plovdiv Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office ordered the DM 200 be returned to the applicant, along with the items which he had already decided not to forfeit. 23.  On 7 July 2003 the applicant was allowed to consult the case file. His ensuing request to the investigator to carry out additional investigative steps was turned down. On 18 September 2003 he appealed to the Military Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, but on 27 October 2003 that Office dismissed the appeal. The applicant’s further appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office on 27 April 2004. 24.  On 10 June 2004 the Plovdiv Military Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant, but on 29 June 2004 the Plovdiv Military Court referred the case back for additional investigation. 25.  On 21 November 2004 the Plovdiv Military Prosecutor’s Office again indicted the applicant, and on 26 November 2004 the judge rapporteur at the Plovdiv Military Courts set the case down for trial. 26.  The trial took place over five days in the end of January and the beginning of February 2005. It appears that the court heard one hundred and forty‑one witnesses. 27.  On 18 March 2005 the Plovdiv Military Court found the applicant guilty of abuse of office and sentenced him to eighteen months’ imprisonment, suspended. 28.  The applicant appealed. On 27 December 2005 the Military Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment. 29.  The applicant appealed on points of law. In a judgment of 19 October 2006 (реш. № 742 от 19 октомври 2006 г. по н. д. № 197/2006 г., ВКС, ІІІ н. о.), the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the court of appeal’s judgment and remitted the case to it. 30.  On 29 December 2006 the Military Court of Appeal partly upheld the applicant’s conviction and partly quashed it in view of the lapse of the statute of limitations in respect of parts of the offence. It also decided to replace the applicant’s criminal liability with an administrative fine of BGN 500. It appears that none of the parties appealed and the judgment became final. 31.  On an unspecified later date the Chief Prosecutor sought re‑opening of the proceedings. In a judgment of 20 March 2008 (реш. № 131 от 20 март 2008 г. по н. д. № 81/2008 г., ВКС, І н. о.), the Supreme Court of Cassation turned down his request.