The award of excessive court costs against a defeated environmental NGO violated its right to property.
JUDGMENT
National Movement Ekoglasnost v. Bulgaria 15.12.2020 (αρ. προσφ. 31678/17)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the applicant association’s being ordered to pay allegedly excessive costs to a
nuclear power plant in proceedings for the reopening of a civil trial.
The Court found in particular that the Supreme Administrative Court had failed to give sufficient
reasoning as to why it had made such a large order, and had failed to balance the general interest
with the rights of the applicant association.
PROVISION
Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant association, National Movement Ekoglasnost, is a Bulgarian association that was
founded in 1992 and is registered in Sofia.
The applicant association is a non-profit legal person which works to solve environmental problems
in Bulgaria. In February 2015 the applicant association applied for leave to join as a third party
judicial-review proceedings of a ministerial decision concerning the only nuclear power plant in the
State. That application was found inadmissible.
Following the Supreme Administrative Court panel’s finding that the decision had been lawful, an
appeal on points of law by the applicant association was found inadmissible. The first court decision
was upheld on the merits.
In 2016 the applicant association applied for the reopening of proceedings. That application was
dismissed, with the Supreme Administrative Court panel finding that the case had been finally
adjudicated. It ordered the applicant to pay the legal fees of the nuclear power plant in the amount
of 6,000 euros (EUR).
In December 2016, following the issuing of a writ of execution, bailiffs collected EUR 17. After a
further attempt by bailiffs to enforce the court decisions, it was noted that the applicant association
could no longer be found at its address. The enforcement proceedings are ongoing.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court noted initially that, contrary to the Government’s argument, the applicant association’s
legal personality had not been in dispute at any point in the domestic proceedings and that it
continued to exist as a legal person. The application was thus admissible.
The applicant association argued in particular that the costs award made against it had overall been
excessive and had failed to balance the interests of society and the individual’s fundamental rights,
particularly given non-governmental organisations’ “watchdog” role. It contended that the court
assessment had been subjective, as the relevant law did not provide criteria regarding “excessive”
legal fees and yet was overly inflexible in terms of minimum amounts. It also pointed out that it was
unclear how those fees had been calculated.
The Court reiterated that according to its case-law court fees are “contributions” which are
controlled by the State. However, in the current case the costs to be paid by the applicant
association had not been “contributions” as they had been ordered in favour of the successful party
in proceedings. The awards thus had to be examined as an “interference” with the association’s
property in the light of its lawfulness, the public interest, and the balance between the general
interest and the association’s rights.
The Court noted the legal basis for the interference, but also noted the applicant’s argument
concerning flexibility, which implied a question concerning proportionality.
The Court reiterated that costs are a well-established and necessary feature of a legal system. Thus
the order in this case had had a legitimate aim.
The Court noted that in Bulgaria, the general rule was that the “loser pays”. The amount was then
assessed by the courts, which take into account the complexity of and interest in the case. They
could reduce the award, but not below a statutory minimum.
The Court considered that the Supreme Administrative Court had not specified sufficiently how it
had assessed the costs. The Court noted, in particular that the amount ordered had been 24 times
the minimum set out in law. This is despite the fact that the issues had been mainly procedural, not
particularly complex and already partially adjudicated. In the Court’s view, the Supreme
Administrative Court had not given sufficient thought to the specifics of the case, and had failed to
balance the general interest and the applicant association’s rights, leaving the association to the
bear an excessive individual burden.
In the light of the above, there had been a breach of the applicant association’s property rights.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Bulgaria was to pay the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 1,500 in respect of costs and expenses
