Recital 43

(43) In situations where it is reasonably assumed that the property frozen is perishable or rapidly depreciating, that its maintenance costs are disproportionate to its expected value at the time of confiscation, that it is too difficult to administer or that it is easily replaceable, Member States should allow for the sale of such property before a final confiscation order. In accordance with national law, the decision on the sale of a property of a specific nature might be subject to prior approval by a national competent authority. Before taking such a decision, Member States should ensure that the affected person, with the exception of cases where the affected person has absconded or cannot be located, is notified and, except in cases of urgency, is given the opportunity to be heard before the sale. Member States should provide for the possibility of an appeal against an order for an interlocutory sale. Member States should provide for the possibility for a court to suspend the execution of such an order, for example where necessary to safeguard the legitimate interests of the affected person, in particular where there is a risk of irreparable harm. Member States can also provide for the possibility of giving the appeal suspensory effect by law. Member States should be able to require the costs for the management of frozen property to be charged to the owner or beneficial owner of the property, for instance as an alternative to the ordering of an interlocutory sale, and in the case of a final conviction.

← Recital 42 · All articles · Recital 44 →

Source: EUR-Lex CELLAR · retrieved 2026-09-04 · Text as adopted (Official Journal); later amendments are not incorporated in this text.