Published on 27 March 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 44251/18 Veselka Georgieva MARKOVA against Bulgaria lodged on 11 September 2018 communicated on 10 March 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the right to access to court in summary civil proceedings ( заповедно производство ).

Such proceedings, provided for under Articles 410 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, are intended to ensure the quick disposal of cases where the debtor does not contest his or her debt. The creditor can thus apply for a payment order which, once issued, is to be served on the debtor. If the debtor objects to the order, the creditor has to resort to standard adversarial proceedings. If the debtor does not object within the time-limit provided, the court issues a writ of execution which is, in principle, final and binding. The payment order can nevertheless be quashed, in certain situations enumerated in Article 423 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in particular where it is established that it has not been duly served on the debtor.

In the present case, on 10 May 2017 a company, claiming that the applicant had not paid for a service it had provided, obtained a payment order against her for 2,160 Bulgarian levs (BGN), equivalent to 1,105 euros (EUR), plus interest and costs. The attempt to serve the order on the applicant failed, because she was not found on her registered address, where she had not been living for several years. Nevertheless, the payment order was considered to have entered into force, and a writ of execution was issued on 23 October 2017. It was served on the applicant on 6 November 2017 at her place of work.

The applicant applied for the quashing of the writ under Article 423 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. She argued that the claimant had known her current address, her place of work and contact details. In a final decision of 12 March 2018 the Sofia City Court dismissed the application, finding it sufficient that service of the payment order had been attempted on the applicant’s registered address.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she was unfairly denied access to court to contest the payment order and thus oppose the issuance of the writ of execution.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in particular seeing that she was not notified of the payment order against her and could not participate in the proceedings and oppose the issuance of a writ of execution (see, among others, Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey , nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, 4 March 2014, Gyuleva v. Bulgaria , no. 38840/08, 9 June 2016; Schmidt v. Latvia , no. 22493/05, 27 April 2017; Berestov v. Russia , no.17342/13, 18 May 2021)?