CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2023

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 27 March 2023   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 13777/18 and 49090/18 Svetlozar Anastasov NIKOLOV against Bulgaria lodged on 15 March 2018 and 13 October 2018 respectively communicated on 10 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern two sets of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, a lawyer in private practice, conducted by the bodies of the Bar – the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Varna Bar and the High Disciplinary Tribunal of the Bar. In the first set of proceedings, in a final decision of 15   September 2017, the applicant was found guilty of professional misconduct for having negligently represented a client and disciplinary sanctions – a suspension of his rights to practice for 9 months and a fine of 2,300 Bulgarian levs (approximately 1,150 euros) – were imposed on him. In the second set of proceedings, in a final decision of 13 April 2018, the High Disciplinary Tribunal imposed a suspension of his rights to practice for 12   months, on the ground that the applicant had behaved unethically in an open court hearing by acting in an unruly manner and entering into confrontation with the judge. The applicant complains under Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 that he was deprived of the right to appeal before a State court the decisions of the disciplinary courts which, in his opinion, do not meet the characteristics of a “tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, whereas lawyers who are members of the Bar Association representative bodies have such a right to appeal. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, he further complains of the lack of a public hearing before the disciplinary courts, in spite of his requests.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil or criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Ramos Nunes de   Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, § 208-11, 6   November 2018)?   If so, did the applicant have access to a court in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, could the disciplinary tribunals of the Bar be considered a “tribunal” in the meaning of that Article (see Guðmundur   Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, §§ 218-34, 1   December 2020)?   2.     Was the exclusion of the public in the present case “strictly necessary” for one of the purposes authorised by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá , cited above, §§ 187-92, and Nikolova and   Vandova v. Bulgaria , no. 20688/04, § 67-71, 17 December 2013?   3.     Was Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 applicable to these proceedings (compare with Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall v. Iceland [GC], nos. 68273/14 and 68271/14, §§ 75-98, 22 December 2020, and Ramos   Nunes de Carvalho e Sá , cited above, §§ 121-28)? If so, was the applicant afforded the right of appeal envisaged by this provision?