THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 59568/21
Rashko Levchov PESHEV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 October 2025 as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Diana Kovatcheva,
Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 59568/21) against the Republic of Bulgaria lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 6 December 2021 by a Bulgarian national, Mr Rashko Levchov Peshev (“the applicant”), who was born in 1969 and lives in Sofia, and was represented by Ms P. Murgova, a lawyer practising in Sofia;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Bulgarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms B. Simeonova from the Ministry of Justice;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case is of the type examined in, among other cases, Lyubomir Popov v. Bulgaria (no. 69855/01, 7 January 2010) and Zikatanova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 45806/11, 12 December 2019) concerning the duration of restitution proceedings under the Agricultural Land Act. In 1997 the competent State body acknowledged the applicant’s entitlement to compensation in relation to a plot of land, which was not subject to restitution in kind. By the time the application was lodged with the Court, the compensation procedure, which is complex and involves arrangements as regards numerous former owners, had not yet been completed.
2. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the excessive duration of the restitution procedure.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
3. On 14 March 2024 the Court gave notice of the application to the Government. Draft declarations setting out a friendly-settlement proposal were sent to the parties by the Registry. The applicant was informed, with reference to Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court, that there was a requirement of strict confidentiality in respect of friendly-settlement negotiations.
4. As the attempts to reach a friendly settlement between the parties failed, the Court invited the Government to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. In their submissions, the Government raised an objection of abuse of the right of individual application on the ground that the applicant’s representative had breached the confidentiality of friendly-settlement negotiations in contravention of Article 39 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court.
5. In particular, the representative had disclosed the content of the friendly-settlement declarations proposed by the Registry to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the Sofia City Regional Agricultural Directorate, which were not involved in the present proceedings before the Court. In letters of 16 May 2024, she informed those institutions that the present application was pending before the Court and that friendly-settlement proceedings were underway. She also provided copies of the draft friendly‑settlement declarations. In addition, she proposed to organise a meeting to negotiate a settlement amount. She indicated that, otherwise, the State would incur additional expenses for the proceedings before the Court and that the compensation which might ultimately be awarded could be much higher.
6. The Government argued that by sending that letter to those two institutions, the representative had revealed confidential information to an undefined group of officials, with the aim of exerting pressure on them and influencing the Government Agent’s office in the friendly-settlement negotiations.
7. In reply, the applicant contended that his representative’s actions had not amounted to an abuse of the right of individual application. The principle of confidentiality had not been breached because she had addressed the letter solely to national institutions which were involved in the restitution proceedings. She had not intended to exert pressure on the domestic authorities or to influence the Government, but to pursue the applicant’s legitimate interest in negotiating a fair settlement amount.
8. According to Article 39 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2, negotiations with a view to securing a friendly settlement are confidential. This is a procedural legal rule which is binding on the parties to proceedings before the Court (see Abbasov and Others v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 36609/08, § 34, 28 May 2013). It prohibits the parties from making public information concerning friendly-settlement negotiations, whether through the media, or by a letter likely to be read by a significant number of people, or by any other means; the rule is absolute and does not allow for individual assessment of how much detail has been disclosed (see Deliktaş v. Türkiye, no. 25852/18, § 26, 12 December 2023, and Gherardi Martiri v. San Marino, no. 35511/20, §§ 77-80, 15 December 2022, with further references).
9. This rule must always be interpreted in the light of its general purpose, namely facilitating a friendly settlement by ensuring that information provided in the course of negotiations is not revealed and made public and by protecting the parties and the Court against potential pressure. In view of the importance of this principle, an intentional breach of the rule of confidentiality may, in certain circumstances, justify the conclusion that an application is inadmissible on the grounds of abuse of the right of application (see Deliktaş, cited above, § 27, and Gherardi Martiri, cited above, § 78, with further references).
10. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the information note enclosed together with the Court’s letter of 14 March 2024 made it clear to the applicant and his representative that the nature of friendly-settlement negotiations was strictly confidential (see paragraph 3 above). The letter also referred to Rule 62 § 2, where this is stated expressly. The representative was, therefore, aware of this requirement and should have complied with it.
11. Nevertheless, in letters sent by the applicant’s representative to two national institutions which were not engaged with the Bulgarian State’s procedural representation before the Court, she intentionally disclosed the details of the friendly-settlement negotiations (see paragraph 5 above). The Government argued that this information must have become available to an undefined group of officials in those administrative bodies (see paragraph 6 above). In addition, the representative relied on the details of those friendly settlement negotiations, including the exact amounts proposed by the Registry (compare Kopytowski v. Poland [Committee] (dec.), no. 59472/11, § 19, 16 June 2015; Y and Others v. Bulgaria [Committee] (dec.), no. 1666/19, § 27, 15 September 2020; and Lechowicz v. Poland [Committee] (dec.), no. 45561/17, §§ 15-16, 8 November 2022).
12. The Court observes, lastly, that in a similar case, namely Y and Others v. Bulgaria (cited above, §§ 27-28), the applicants’ representatives had intentionally disclosed the content of the friendly-settlement declarations proposed by the Court’s Registry to different national institutions and courts. In that case, the Court rejected the application as inadmissible on grounds of abuse of the right of individual application.
13. Against this background, the Court concludes that the conduct of the applicant’s representative in the present case amounted to a breach of the rule of confidentiality, which must be considered to constitute an abuse of the right of individual application.
14. It follows that the application is inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 20 November 2025.
Olga Chernishova Peeter Roosma
Deputy Registrar President