Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)152[1]
Nedelcho Popov against Bulgaria
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 61360/00, judgment of 22 November 2007, final on 22 February 2008)
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)924E);
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)924E);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46§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.
Action report
Case of Nedelcho Popov v. Bulgaria, application no. 61360/00,
judgment of 22 November 2007, final on 22 February 2008
The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to access to a court (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) as a result of the operation of a legal provision excluding from judicial review work-related disputes concerning certain categories of employees such as the applicant, who had been holding the post of “Chief Adviser” at the Council of Ministers. The applicant was dismissed on 30 July 1997 and on the basis of the above‑mentioned provision his ensuing action for unfair dismissal was declared inadmissible.
1) INDIVIDUAL MEASURES
-The European Court did not award pecuniary damage to the applicant, finding that his claim for compensation in respect of lost income due to the dismissal was speculative as it had not been established that had he had access to a court his claim would have been successful. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, which the Government paid on 10 May 2008.
-As the applicant’s claim for unfair dismissal was not examined by means of a final court judgment, it was not open for him to request re-opening of the judicial proceedings following the European Court’s judgment.
The Government does not consider that any further individual measures are necessary or possible in the case. There is no opportunity to re-open the domestic judicial proceedings and the applicant has been awarded non-pecuniary damage. At the same time the Government points out that the applicant was a highly qualified expert, his tasks as “Chief Adviser” at the Council of Ministers having included providing expert opinion on draft legislation and involvement in the organisation of national and local elections (§ 7 of the judgment), and thus following his dismissal he was possibly in a position to find appropriate employment, thus not suffering serious adverse consequences. It should be noted also that the applicant did not submit any claim before the Committee of Ministers concerning the individual measures in this case.
In the light of all these circumstances the Government believes that no further individual measures are necessary to erase the consequences of the violation found by the European Court.
2) GENERAL MEASURES
-The violation of the applicant’s right to access to a court in the case resulted from a provision of the Labour Code, namely Article 360 § 2 (2)(a), which was subsequently declared by the Constitutional Court to be contrary to the Bulgarian Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention (Constitutional Court judgment No. 11 of 30 April 1998, see § 20 of the European Court’s judgment). In 2001 the provision was repealed.
-The Court’s judgment has been translated into Bulgarian and published on the web site of the Ministry of Justice:
The Government considers that no further general measures are necessary as there exists no likelihood of future similar violations.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy