CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mai 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 2 June 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 51897/21 TITA 04 EOOD against Bulgaria lodged on 8 October 2021 communicated on 14 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns access to a court. The applicant company, which owns a plot of land used for its business, sought to challenge amendments to the local urban development plan that transferred 47 square metres of the street leading to its land to a neighbouring plot. As the applicant company is engaged with lumber production and transportation, it requires access to its plot by heavy-load trucks. According to it, the street’s narrowing prevents the effective use of the land and the warehouses constructed on it. The applicant company applied for the judicial review of the administrative decision amending the urban development plan. However, the national courts declared its application inadmissible for lack of standing (final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 8 April 2021). The domestic courts noted that the amendments did not directly concern the applicant’s plot, nor did they meet the conditions under which a neighbour could challenge such amendments – such as, for example, a change in a plot’s designation. The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that its application for judicial review was not examined on the merits.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the judicial-review proceedings initiated by the applicant company? If so, was the restriction of the company’s right to access to a court, as guaranteed under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, justified?