FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 18354/07 Kotse Filipov KOTSEV against Bulgaria lodged on 4 April 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Kotse Filipov Kotsev , is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Sofia . He is represented before the Court by Mr V.V. Bogorov , a lawyer practising in Sofia .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was fined for a road offence in 2003. He appealed against it and the court quashed the fine in a decision of 2004. The applicant then brought proceedings against the Sofia Department of the Ministry of Interior, seeking compensation under the State Responsibility for Damage Act 1988 for the lawyer ’ s fee of 40 Bulgarian levs (BGN) (around 20 euros (EUR)) which he had paid in order to appeal against the fine. The Sofia District Court granted the applicant ’ s claim in a judgment of 17 June 2005. The court ordered the Ministry of Interior to pay to the applicant BGN 40 as compensation, as well as around BGN 40 for costs and expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings for damages. The applicant appealed to the Sofia City Court which, in a decision of 12 December 2005, raised the amount due to him for costs and expenses from BGN 40 to BGN 120 (about EUR 60).

In February 2006 the applicant obtained a writ of execution. He presented it a month later to the Sofia Department of the Ministry of Interior, asking that the above-mentioned sums be paid to him. He also wrote to the Ministry of Interior on 15 November 2006 inquiring about the payment. In a letter of September 2010 the applicant informed the Court that the compensation had not yet been paid to him.

In November 2010 the applicant wrote to the prosecutor requesting that criminal proceedings be opened against the person responsible for the lack of payment. The prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings as he found that no criminal offence had been committed. The prosecutor ’ s decision was delivered on 18 November 2010 and it does not appear that the applicant appealed against it.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Enforcement of judgment debts against State authorities

By virtue of paragraph 2 of Article 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1952, a person who had an enforceable pecuniary claim (e.g. a judgment debt) against a State authority received payment out of the funds earmarked for that purpose in the authority ’ s budget.

A writ of execution evidencing the claim had to be issued and then submitted to the authority ’ s financial department. If there were no funds available in the authority ’ s budget, the higher administrative authority had to ensure that funds became available in the budget for the following year.

Enforcement proceedings were not, and continue not to be, possible where the judgment debtor is a State authority. Until December 1997, paragraph 1 of Article 399 of the Code contained an explicit prohibition to that effect. Although this provision was repealed in December 1997, the legal framework remained unchanged, as paragraph 2 of Article 399 was not amended.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the Ministry of Interior did not pay to him the sum awarded in the final court decision of 12 December 2005 in his favour.

The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 1 that the final judicial decision in his favour was not enforced and under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy in that respect.

Finally, he complains under Article 14 that he was a victim of discrimination as a result of the fact that he could not pursue forced execution of the judicial decision against the State, while other creditors whose debtors were private parties, were not prevented from doing that.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the decision of the Sofia City Court of 12 December 2005 in favour of the appli cant enforced and, if yes, when?

2. D id the alleged failure to enforce the final court decision constitute a breach, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the applicant ’ s right to effective protection of his civil rights stemming from the said court decision ( Mancheva v. Bulgaria , no. 39609/98, 30 September 2004 )?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal effective remedi es under Article 13 in conjunction with Artic le 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009 ), for the implementation of the final Sofia Cit y Court decision of 12 December 2005?