CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 février 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FOURTH SECTION Application no. 18238/06 Denka Angelova YAGNINA against Bulgaria lodged on 28 April 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Denka Angelova Yagnina, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in the village of Voyvodino. She is represented before the Court by Mr Y. Grozev, a lawyer practising in Sofia. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. For many years before 1985 the applicant worked as a driver of tractors and other heavy machines. This work led to her developing dysfunctions of the nervous system, and in 1985 she was declared to have a “third degree disability” and the applicant started receiving a disability pension. Between 1985 and 2000 the applicant underwent seven medical re ‑ examinations by the local Territorial Expert Medical Commission (“the TEMC”), the body competent to assess the level of disability. The applicant was diagnosed with vegetative polyneuropathy of the upper extremities, coxarthrosis, cervical spondylosis and radiculopathy. On all occasions she was assessed to have a “third degree disability”, which was based on a finding that she had lost between 50 and 70% of the ability to work. The level of disability established entitled the applicant to receive a disability pension. On 14 November 2000 the applicant underwent a new regular re-examination by the TEMC. This time she was diagnosed with vegetative polyneuropathy of the upper extremities and myotendinosis. No mention was made of the other diseases diagnosed earlier, namely coxarthrosis, cervical spondylosis and radiculopathy. On that basis the TEMC assessed the loss of ability to work at 40%, which was not sufficient to entitle the applicant to a disability pension. The applicant challenged this decision before the National Expert Medical Commission (“the NEMC”). After re-examining her, in a decision of 14 February 2001 the NEMC declared the applicant fully fit to work. Its diagnosis was “spondylosis and related diseases”. The applicant applied to the Sofia City Court for judicial review of that decision. The Sofia City Court appointed a medical expert who examined the applicant and concluded that she suffered from the following conditions: cervical spondylarthrosis, vegetative polyneuropathy, myotendinosis of the upper limbs and coxarthrosis of the coxofemoral joint. The expert pointed out that these conditions had a chronic character and had permanently and negatively affected the applicant’s state of health. If anything, after 1985 some of them had become worse. The expert pointed out that such conditions led to a significant reduction of the affected person’s ability to work. On the basis of that report, in a judgment of 27 December 2002 the Sofia City Court quashed the NEMC’s decision of 14 February 2001. It noted that the expert’s conclusions were corroborated by the remaining documents in the case file, which showed that the applicant’s ability to work was indeed reduced, and that the NEMC had not appropriately assessed her state of health. The court remitted the case for a fresh examination, pointing out that it was the NEMC which had to fix the exact percentage of the applicant’s reduced ability to work. The judgment above was apparently not appealed against and entered into force on 11 February 2003. The NEMC examined the applicant on 9 October 2003. In its decision of the same date it indicated as a leading diagnosis “spondylosis and related diseases”. It specified that the applicant suffered from cervical spondylarthrosis and cervical radiculopathy, which were occupational diseases, and from myotendinosis of the upper limbs and coxarthrosis, which were not. It considered that the applicant did not suffer from vegetative polyneuropathy of the upper limbs. On that basis the NEMC assessed the applicant’s reduced ability to work at 30%. Once again, the applicant applied for judicial review of the NEMC’s decision. The Sofia City Court appointed a medical expert, who concluded that the applicant suffered from the following diseases which he considered occupational: cervical spondylarthrosis, vegetative polyneuropathy, myotendinosis of the upper limbs and coxarthrosis of the two coxofemoral joints. The expert considered that these conditions had a permanent and chronic character and had led to irreversible degenerative changes to the applicant’s locomotor system. On that basis, in a judgment of 6 January 2005 the Sofia City Court quashed the NEMC’s decision of 9 October 2003 and remitted the case, finding that the administrative body had not taken into account all the relevant circumstances. It considered the NEMC’s opinion that the applicant did not suffer from vegetative polyneuropathy unfounded and concluded that the NEMC’s decision did not reflect the applicant’s actual state of health. Upon an appeal by the NEMC, in a final judgment of 15 July 2005, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the City Court’s judgment. Following that, in a decision of 28 October 2005 which supplemented the decision of 9 October 2003, the NEMC acknowledged that the applicant suffered from vegetative polyneuropathy of the upper limbs, which it considered an occupational disease. The NEMC’s new assessment of the applicant’s reduced ability to work was 40%, which did not entitle the applicant to a disability pension. The applicant did not apply for judicial review of the above decision. The payment of the applicant’s disability pension was discontinued as of 2 October 2000. B.     Relevant domestic law The Administrative Procedure Act 1979, in force at the time of the events in question, did not provide for any procedures capable of obliging an administrative body to comply with a final court judgment. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that in its decisions of 9 October 2003 and 28 October 2005 the NEMC, acting in an arbitrary manner, failed duly to comply with the final court judgments given in the judicial review proceedings initiated by her. She considers that she had no means at her disposal to obtain proper enforcement of the judgments. 2.     In addition, the applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, arguing that she was unduly deprived of the entitlement to receive a disability pension. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Were the Sofia City Court’s judgment of 27 December 2002 and the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 15 July 2005 complied with in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the applicant have at her disposal remedies to challenge the National Expert Medical Commission’s actions taken in response to these judgments?   2.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention breached in the case by reason of the alleged failure to comply with these final judgments?