CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s61CAB3E5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sADD4F530 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8ADCD53C { width:135.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 67568/16 Centre for Independent Living against Bulgaria   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on   12   September 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Yonko Grozev,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no. 67568/16) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 15   November 2016 by an association, Centre for Independent Living, formed in 1995 and having its registered office in Sofia (“the applicant association” or “the association”), represented by Ms S. Razboynikova, a lawyer practising in Sofia; the decision to give the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms R. Nikolova, notice of the application; and the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicant association sought judicial review of rules in which the Council of Ministers (the Government) had laid down criteria for recognising organisations of or for people with disabilities as “nationally representative”, and thus entitled to sit on a national consultative body for the integration of such people, attached to the Government, and to various tax exemptions and State financing. Eighteen other non-profit organisations which were already members of that consultative body intervened in support of the Government. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant association’s claim and its ensuing appeal, and ordered it to pay the costs incurred by seventeen interveners at first instance and by nine interveners on appeal. 2.     The applicant association complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 that the two costs orders against it had unjustifiably interfered with its possessions, and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that those costs awards had breached its right of access to a court. It also complained under those two provisions that the Supreme Administrative Court’s appellate panel had refused to deal with its objection to the quantum of the interveners’ costs on appeal. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 3 .     The association complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the two costs orders against it had been unlawful and unjustified. 4 .     A costs order requiring a party to proceedings to reimburse other parties’ costs and expenses interferes with the “possessions” of the litigant against whom it is made (see Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia , no. 72152/13, §   92, 6 September 2016, and National Movement Ekoglasnost v. Bulgaria , no. 31678/17, § 71, 15 December 2020). 5 .     However, as noted by the Government and conceded by the association, and as transpiring from the information provided by the Supreme Administrative Court, none of the interveners to which that court had awarded costs have sought writs of execution with a view to enforcing those awards against the association. Nor is there any evidence that the association has otherwise paid those costs to the interveners; it made no such contention, and did not seek any compensation in respect of pecuniary damage (compare Kirov and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 57214/09, § 42, 9 January 2018). 6 .     Those costs awards are, moreover, apparently no longer enforceable. Under Bulgarian law, liability for costs is governed by the law of obligations (see, generally, реш. № 67 от 03.04.2014 г. по гр. д. № 2944/2013 г., ВКС, IV г. о. , and реш. № 189 от 20.06.2014 г. по гр. д. № 5193/2013 г., ВКС, IV г. о. ; and, as regards specifically costs in proceedings before the administrative courts, реш. № 9631 от 24.06.2019 г. по адм. д. №   12363/2018 г., ВАС, VI о. , and опр. № 9984 от 04.10.2021 г. по адм. д. № 9486/2021 г., ВАС, VII о. ). That liability is hence subject to the five-year limitation period applicable to claims governed by that law (see опр. № 538 от   17.06.2016 г. по гр. д. № 2367/2016 г., ВКС, III г. о. , and опр. № 534 от 18.06.2019 г. по гр. д. № 465/2019 г., ВКС, IV г. о. ). The costs awards became final in, respectively, May and July 2016. There being no indication that the five-year limitation periods in respect of them have been interrupted, they must have expired in, respectively, May and July 2021 (compare Kirov and Others , cited above, § 44). 7 .     It is therefore no longer justified to continue examining this complaint within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see Kirov and Others , cited above, § 46). 8 .     The alleged breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 resulted chiefly from   (a) the specific procedural configuration arising in the case before the Supreme Administrative Court, and (b) the manner in which that court construed and applied the rules governing liability for costs when a claim for judicial review resisted by interveners has been dismissed – laid down in Article 143 §§ 3 and 4 of the 2006 Code of Administrative Procedure and Article 78 of the 2007 Code of Civil Procedure (which, by Article 144 of the 2006 Code, governs all matters not specifically addressed in the part of the same Code governing judicial review) – rather than from the way in which those rules were framed. It follows that respect for human rights does not require the complaint’s continued examination under Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Khan v. Germany (striking out) [GC], no. 38030/12, § 40, 21 September 2016, and   Mraović v. Croatia (striking out) [GC], no. 30373/13, § 27, 9 April 2021). 9 .     The application is hence to be struck out of the Court’s list in so far as it relates to this complaint. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 10 .     The complaints that (a) the costs awards against the association were in breach of its right of access to a court, and that (b) the appellate panel of the Supreme Administrative Court refused to deal with the association’s objection to the quantum of the costs sought by the interveners for the appeal proceedings fall to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 11 .     This provision applies to proceedings concerning costs (see Robins v.   the United Kingdom , 23 September 1997, § 29, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V), but only if it applies to the proceedings to which those costs relate (see Beer v. Austria , no. 30428/96, §§ 12-13, 6 February 2001; Lamprecht v. Austria (dec.), no. 71888/01, 25 March 2004; and Macri v. Italy (dec.), no. 38897/04, 12 June 2007). The general principles governing the assessment whether Article 6 § 1 applies to given proceedings under its civil limb are settled. They have been set out in, for instance,   Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 27644/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-IV), Bochan v.   Ukraine (no. 2) ([GC], no. 22251/08, § 42, ECHR 2015) and   Grzęda v.   Poland ([GC], no. 43572/18, § 257, 15 March 2022). 12 .     In this case, the proceedings to which the costs in issue related were standalone norm-control proceedings under Articles 185 to 196 of the 2006 Code of Administrative Procedure, in which the Supreme Administrative Court was asked to determine – in an abstract way and without any reference to the particular case of the association or other proceedings bearing individually on the association’s situation – whether rules in which the Government had laid down criteria for recognising an organisation of or for people with disabilities as “nationally representative” were contrary to higher-ranking rules (compare Giesinger und Kopf GmbH & Co. KG and Alfons Giesinger v. Austria , no. 13062/87, Commission decision of 29 May 1991, Decisions and Reports 70, p. 152, at p. 155). 13 .     Moreover, the association’s claim for judicial review of those rules, although stating that the impossibility for it to be recognised as “nationally representative” under the rules as they stood prevented it from obtaining State financing and various privileges and tax exemptions, did not assert that this affected any specific rights it itself had (compare Giesinger und Kopf GmbH & Co. KG and Alfons Giesinger , cited above, and contrast Voggenreiter v.   Germany , no. 47169/99, §§ 35-37, ECHR 2004-I (extracts)). 14 .     The outcome of the proceedings would not have necessarily affected directly the association’s individual situation either (contrast   Procola v.   Luxembourg , 28 September 1995, § 39, Series A no. 326, and Xero Flor w Polsce sp. z o.o. v. Poland , no. 4907/18, § 208, 7 May 2021). Even if the Supreme Administrative Court had set aside the rules under challenge on the basis that the constitutional, international-law and statutory provisions cited by the association in its challenge required that looser criteria be applied for recognising an association of or for people with disabilities as “nationally representative”, that would not have unavoidably led to a decision recognising the association as “nationally representative”. Such recognition would have depended both on the content of any (potential) new rules made to replace the ones challenged by the association and on a subsequent (potential) individual decision on whether the association complied with the criteria laid down in such new rules. 15.     The proceedings to which the costs awards related were thus not directly decisive for any “right” of the association. 16 .     Moreover, any “right” of the association which might have been at stake in those proceedings cannot be seen as “civil”. The main consequence of recognition as “nationally representative” would have been an entitlement for the association to sit on a consultative body attached to the Government. But the right to sit on a public consultative body advising on public policies is not “civil” (see, mutatis mutandis , Geraguyn Khorhurd Patgamavorakan Akumb v. Armenia (dec.), no. 11721/04, § 28, 14 April 2009). 17 .     A second consequence of such recognition would have been an exemption from property-acquisition tax. But the right to be exempt from tax is not “civil” either (see Niedzwiecki v. Germany (no. 2) , no. 12852/08, § 31, 1 April 2010). 18 .     A third consequence of such recognition would have been the possibility to obtain State financing. But the right for a non-profit organisation to receive State subsidies is not “civil” either (see Woonbron Volkshuisvestingsgroep and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 47122/99, 18 June 2002). 19 .     The complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a), and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4. Costs 20 .     When an application is struck out under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, costs are at the Court’s discretion (Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court). This applies to partial strike-outs as well (see   Sisojeva and Others v.   Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 131, ECHR 2007-I), but only with respect to costs relating to the complaints being struck out (see Youssef v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 11936/08, § 25, 27 September 2011). 21 .     Regard being had to this, the documents in the Court’s possession, and the relevant criteria (see Sisojeva and Others , § 133, and Khan , § 47, both cited above), the applicant association is to be awarded 2,000 euros (EUR), plus any tax that may be chargeable to it, in respect of lawyers’ fees, to be paid into the bank account of its representative before the Court, Ms   S.   Razboynikova. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the two costs orders against the applicant association unjustifiably interfered with its possessions; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant association, within three months, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the association, in respect of costs, to be paid into the bank account of the association’s representative before the Court, Ms   S. Razboynikova; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on this amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 October 2023.     Olga Chernishova   Ioannis Ktistakis   Deputy Registrar   President