Information Note on the Court’s case-law 36

November 2001

Bozhilov v. Bulgaria (dec.) - 41978/98

Decision 22.11.2001 [Section I]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Revocation by new Government of nomination by previous Government to a post in an international organisation: inadmissible

In 1996 the Bulgarian Government nominated the applicant for the post of Director of the per manent secretariat of the Black Sea Economic Co-operation (BSEC), an international organisation. In October 1996, following a decision taken by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the member States of the BSEC, the applicant was appointed Director of the s ecretariat as of 1 st May 1997. In February 1997 there was a change of Government in Bulgaria. As a result the new Minister of Foreign Affairs withdrew the applicant’s nomination for the post of Director of the permanent secretariat of the BSEC. The new Gov ernment nominated another person who, on 30 April 1997, was appointed to the post of Director by decision of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the member States of the BSEC. The applicant unsuccessfully lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Co urt against the decision of the Government of April 1997. The court held that the impugned decision was not an administrative act within the meaning of Article 120 of the Constitution and thus was not subject to judicial review.

Inadmissible under Articles 9, 10, 11 and 14: The applicant complained that he was removed because of his links with the socialist party. It had to be determined whether the disputed measure amounted to an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression or association or whe ther it was within the sphere of the right of access to the civil service, a right not secured by the Convention. In the instant case, the impugned act is the decision of the Bulgarian authorities to withdraw the applicant’s nomination as a candidate for t he post of Director in an international organisation. Therefore, the impugned measure concerned access to a post in an international governmental organisation, a matter which is not within the ambit of the Convention. Moreover, the rules of the BSEC regard ing the appointment of the Director of its permanent secretariat required that the candidate be nominated by one of the member States, on the basis of rotation. The nomination of a candidate is clearly within the discretionary powers of States. In the pres ent case, the decision of the Government to withdraw the nomination of the applicant was clearly within these discretionary powers and could not be seen as an interference with Articles 9, 10 or 11 or in breach of Article 14 taken together with any of the aforementioned articles: manifestly ill-founded.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: (a) Whether the dispute for which the applicant sought access to the Supreme Administrative Court concerned his civil rights and obligations – the impugned decision of the G overnment fell within its discretionary powers, the authorities enjoying full discretion in their choice of candidate. The applicant had not shown that he could claim any right under domestic law to be nominated by the authorities as candidate. Nonetheless , he stated that by withdrawing his nomination the authorities had deprived him of a right already acquired, namely the right to take over the duties of Director of the BSEC secretariat as of 1 st May 1997, since he had been elected to the post following a meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of member States in October 1996. However, the applicant could not claim to have a right within the meaning of the present Article to have the continued support of the Government for his nomination: incompatible ratione materiae .

(b) Whether the events complained of as a whole amounted to an infringement of the applicant’s access to a court – although the applicant directed his complaints against the Government decision of April 1997, it could be understood that h e complained more generally of not having had access to a judicial body in the determination of the dispute on whether he had been unlawfully removed from a post in an international organisation. His only attempt to obtain a judicial decision was directed against the Government decision and not against the BSEC or any of its organs. He could only claim rights under his alleged employment as Director of the BSEC by challenging acts and decisions of the organisation in question, which he failed to do. Further more, he did not allege that there were legal obstacles to his bringing an action against the BSEC or that the responsibility of the Bulgarian authorities could be engaged in respect of any such impediment if it existed: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes