Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)150[1]
Bulinvar OD and Hrusanov against Bulgaria
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 66455/01, judgment of 12 April 2007, final on 12 July 2007)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)914E);
Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)914E);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Application Bulinvar OOD and Hrusanov v. Bulgaria (no 66455/01)
Action report on the execution of the judgment of the European Court of human rights
delivered on 12/4/2007
This case concerns the infringement of the applicant company’s right of access to a court to challenge the refusal by a state commission to authorise the use of its new building (violation of Article 6§1). The Supreme Administrative Court has found that it was not competent to examine an administrative decision on the merits. The European Court did not find a violation in respect of the second applicant, Mr. Hrusanov.
1. Individual measures:
An amount of just satisfaction has not been awarded by the Court.
The applicant company has availed itself of the legislative framework and has submitted a request in order to initiate the revocation of the judgment violating its right to access to a court.
Following its request, the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court was quashed on the grounds of art. 239§6 of Code of Administrative Procedure of 2006 and the judicial proceedings were reopened. In the new proceedings, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the lower court’s decision which is in favour of the applicant company.
Therefore, the government considers that the applicant’s company interests are fully protected and that no further individual measures seem necessary.
2. General measures
The government is of the opinion that the case under supervision of the Committee of Ministers constitutes an isolated infringement of the right to access to a court in the field of urban development. The judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court criticised by the European Court is not part of a constant jurisprudence in this respect and has been quashed after the reopening of the proceedings.
Moreover, the legal framework applicable at the relevant time has been repealed and replaced by new legislation in the area of urban development. New legislation has also been adopted in the area of administrative procedure, namely the Code of Administrative Procedure of 2006.
A translation has been prepared and the judgment has been published on the web site of the Ministry of justice .
3. Conclusions
In conclusion the government considers that the measures adopted have remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new similar violations and that Bulgaria have complied with its obligation under 46 §1 of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy