CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 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 }   Communicated on 12 December 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 31678/17 NATIONAL MOVEMENT EKOGLASNOST against Bulgaria lodged on 24 April 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the reopening proceedings brought by the applicant association, a non-governmental environmental organisation, against a final judgment of 17   March 2016 of a five-judge panel of the Supreme Administrative Court on grounds that the applicant association had been deprived of its right to take part in the proceedings. The proceedings at stake, which were instituted by another association, concerned the judicial review of a resolution of the Environment and Water Minister of 25   July 2014 not to carry out an environmental impact assessment in relation to an investment proposal to extend the operation of blocks Nos.   5 and 6 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant.   In a final decision of 24   October 2016 a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Administrative Court turned down the request for reopening and ordered the applicant association to pay 12,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN, or approximately 6,136 euros (EUR)) in costs, comprising the fees chargeable for the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant’s legal representation. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Was there an interference with the applicant association’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, on account of the final decision of 24   October 2016 of the Supreme Administrative Court ordering the association to pay BGN   12,000 (approximately EUR   6,136) in costs for the legal representation of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant in the reopening proceedings?   If so, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant association?