CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 juillet 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 4 July 2017   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 66319/11 and 9838/12 EM INZHENERING EOOD against Bulgaria and TSIFROVI SISTEMI OOD against Bulgaria lodged on 15 September 2011 and 27 January 2012 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The two applications concern the refusal of the domestic courts of 19   May 2011 and 14   October 2011 respectively to examine the applicant companies’ complaints against decisions imposing on them pecuniary sanctions for infringements of the provisions of the Territorial Planning Act and the Labour Code, due to a statutory prohibition on judicial review of such decisions.   QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES   Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable under its civil or criminal head to the proceedings in the present cases?   Was the applicant companies’ right of access to a court breached in view of the statutory ban on seeking judicial review against decisions imposing pecuniary sanctions provided at the material time in section 239 (4) of the Territorial Planning Act ( Закон за устройство на територията ) and Article   416   (7) of the Labour Code ( Кодекс на труда ) and the decisions of the domestic courts refusing to examine the applicants’ appeals in that respect?