CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 12 December 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 1284/21 EUROFOOTBALL OOD against Bulgaria lodged on 23 December 2020 communicated on 21 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Until the beginning of 2020 the applicant company was one of the largest sports betting operators in Bulgaria. It held the requisite gambling licences, issued under the Gambling Act 2012. On 14 February 2020 the State Gambling Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”) ordered the applicant company to pay about 328 million Bulgarian levs (BGN) – the equivalent of about 168 million euros (EUR) – in gambling fees retroactively due for the period from 2014 to January 2020. The Commission was of the view that during these years the applicant company had not been paying the full amounts due, wrongly relying on a legal provision allowing lesser fees. The applicant company applied for the judicial review of the above order. The proceedings were still pending by the time of the latest information provided by it to the Court in July 2022. In the meantime, the Commission held that its order of 14 February 2020 was subject to preliminary enforcement; that decision became final on 23   March 2020 after being upheld by the national courts. On 25 March 2020, noting that the sum due had not been paid, the Commission suspended the applicant company’s gambling licences; this resulted in the cessation of the company’s business activities. Since the applicant company remained unable to pay, its gambling licences were revoked in two decisions of the Commission of 14 July 2020 (one of which became final on 29 July 2022). The applicant company has since become the subject of insolvency proceedings. The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the preliminary enforcement of the order of 14 February 2020, the revocation of its gambling licences, and the resulting cessation of its business. It points out that these measures were taken despite the order of 14 February 2020 not having yet entered into force. It complains also under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the national courts which reviewed the decision on the preliminary enforcement of the order of 14 February 2020 failed to adequately account for the grave consequences such a decision entailed. Lastly, the applicant company complains under Article 18 of the Convention that the measures against it were not aimed at collecting unpaid gambling fees, but at destroying the businesses of the applicant’s main shareholder, Mr   Vasil Bozhkov, and at “eliminating him from the economic, political and public life” in Bulgaria. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of that provision? 2.     Was the national courts’ alleged failure, when reviewing the State Gambling Commission’s decision on the preliminary enforcement of the order of 14 February 2020, to account for the grave consequences of such a decision for the applicant company, in compliance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? 3.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?