Published on 7 February 2022
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 56352/14
Maria Hristova STANEVA and Darina Veselinova STANEVA
against Bulgaria
lodged on 1 August 2014
communicated on 17 January 2022
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants, Ms Darina Veselinova Staneva and Ms Maria Hristova Staneva, are Bulgarian nationals, who were born in 1991 and 1963 respectively and live in Karnobat.
The circumstances of the caseThe facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A close relative of the applicants – father of the first applicant and husband of the second applicant – died on 1 September 2010, as a result of injuries sustained several days earlier in a car crash caused by H.T.
Criminal proceedings were opened against H.T. in relation to the accident, but they were discontinued on 15 June 2011. It was established that the accused, who suffered from a bipolar affective disorder, had at the time been in a manic phase and experiencing psychotic symptoms; he could not thus be held criminally liable.
Since H.T. had had a civil liability insurance, in June 2011 the applicants brought proceedings against the insurance company, seeking damage in relation to their relative’s death.
The Sofia City Court, in a judgment of 23 July 2012, awarded such damage. However, on 14 March 2013 the Sofia Court of Appeal reversed this decision, dismissing the applicants’ claim. It found undisputed that H.T. had been validly insured and that he had caused the accident killing the applicants’ relative; it affirmed also that at the time of the accident H.T. had been of unsound mind, which meant that the damage caused to the applicants had not been through his “fault”, as required under section 45 of the Obligations and Contracts Act (see Relevant domestic law below). H.T could not be held civilly liable, which meant that his insurer, whose own liability as defined in Article 226 § 1 of the Code of Insurance 2005 (see Relevant domestic law below) was “functional”, was not liable as well. The insurer’s liability was
“conditioned on the liability of the insured person and in cases where the latter is not liable for any damage caused to the victims, the insurer does not owe the payment of damages either.”
In a final decision of 10 March 2014 the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to accept for examination the applicants’ appeal on points of law. In finding no grounds to examine that appeal, it noted in particular that the Sofia Court of Appeal’s findings on the insurer’s “functional” liability were in accordance with its own constant practice.
Relevant domestic lawThe general rules of the law of tort are set out in the Obligations and Contracts Act. Section 45(1) of the Act provides that everyone is obliged to make good the damage which they have, through their fault, caused to another. Under section 45(2), fault is presumed until proved otherwise.
Civil liability insurance was regulated under the Code of Insurance 2005, in force at the relevant time. Article 226 of the Code provided in particular that the person having sustained damage through the fault of the insured could claim compensation for that damage directly from the insurer.
Civil liability insurance is obligatory for drivers. A so-called Guarantee Fund was created under Article 287 of the Code of Insurance, with the financial contribution of all licensed insurers, tasked with providing compensation in specific situations not covered by an insurance contract – such as where the person having caused the accident was unknown or had not been insured, or where the vehicle implicated in the accident had been stolen. The relevant situations, enumerated in Article 288 of the Code, do not cover the situation obtaining in the present case.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain, relying on Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, that they could not receive compensation for their relative’s death.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the respondent State meet its procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, in particular to put in place an effective judicial system affording the applicants adequate redress for their close relative’s death (see Vanyo Todorov v. Bulgaria, no. 31434/15, §§ 58-67, 21 July 2020)? Was the unavailability of compensation to the applicants, either through the liability of the insurer or, possibly, through the Guarantee Fund, justified?
2. Did the applicants have a “legitimate expectation” to receive compensation and was therefore Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applicable? If so, was the refusal to award such compensation in line with that provision’s requirements?