Published on 17 July 2023

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 5883/18 Panayot Kurtev PANAYOTOV against Bulgaria lodged on 25 January 2018 communicated on 29 June 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the right to access to court in administrative proceedings.

The applicant took part in an auction for the sale of State-owned real property (a flat), organised by the administration of the Regional Governor of Varna. On 2 February 2016 the Regional Governor issued an order by virtue of which another bidder was awarded the flat. The applicant explains that the order was published on the official website of Varna Regional Administration on the same date. The order indicated that it was amenable to judicial review within fourteen days as of the date of its publication. Therefore, on 4 February 2016, the applicant lodged an appeal against the order before the Administrative Court – Varna. On 9 February 2016, the applicant received a paper copy of the order by post.

On 31 October 2016, the Administrative Court, affirming that the appeal had been lodged in time, quashed the impugned order on procedural grounds.

In a final judgment of 14 December 2017, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), acting on appeal by the Regional Governor, reversed the lower court’s judgment and upheld the order. It ruled that pursuant to Article 149 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, the time limit for filing an appeal started from the day the applicant was notified of the order. The SAC considered that the applicant was notified on 9 February 2016 and rejected his appeal for being premature, without examining it on the merits.

The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, that he was denied access to court to contest the order of the Regional Governor, as the decision of Supreme Administrative Court was based on an overly formalistic interpretation of the relevant provisions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings in the present case? In particular, was there a “dispute” over a “civil right” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

2. If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the interpretation by the Supreme Administrative Court of the procedural rules governing time limits for submission of an appeal in administrative proceedings based on an excessively formalistic approach (see, among others, Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 96-98, 5 April 2018, Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain , nos. 38366/97 and 9 others, § 37, 25 January 2000 and Xavier Lucas v. France , no. 15567/20, § 57, 9 June 2022)?

In this context, the parties are invited to submit relevant domestic courts’ case law as to the application of the rules governing the time limits for submitting an appeal in administrative proceedings.