<\/p>\n
The case Boychev v. Bulgaria<\/em> before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) raises fundamental questions regarding the proportionality of legal costs and their impact on the right of access to a court. This case is of particular importance to national judicial practice in the context of the application of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as it highlights the need for an individualized and proportionate assessment when awarding costs in proceedings against state authorities.<\/p>\n The applicant, Y. Boychev, filed a claim against Sofia Municipality and the Ministry of Regional Development, alleging that he had suffered an accident due to the inaction of public authorities, namely their failure to maintain road infrastructure safely. He claimed BGN 5,000 for non-pecuniary damages and BGN 305 for pecuniary damages.<\/p>\n The District Court partially upheld the claim, awarding BGN 1,000 for non-pecuniary damages and the full amount of pecuniary damages. At the same time, on the basis of Article 78(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), the court ordered the applicant to pay the defendants a total of BGN 459.78 for legal representation by in-house counsel.<\/p>\n After appealing the amount of the awarded compensation and costs, the Sofia City Court upheld the first-instance judgment and additionally ordered the applicant to pay another BGN 760 (BGN 380 to each institution) for legal representation on appeal. Subsequent requests for amendment and supplementation of the decision on costs were rejected, and the Supreme Court of Cassation declared the cassation appeal inadmissible, as neither of the claims exceeded the statutory threshold of BGN 5,000 for cassation review.<\/p>\n The ECtHR found a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the ECHR. The Court emphasized that although the applicant had partially succeeded on the merits, the legal costs awarded to the state institutions exceeded the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damages. According to established ECtHR case law, such a situation may impose a disproportionate financial burden and restrict the effective exercise of the right of access to a court.<\/p>\n The Court noted that the national courts had not provided an individualized assessment of the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs, despite the applicant\u2019s explicit reference to similar cases, including S. v. Bulgaria<\/em>. Instead, the courts had automatically applied Article 78(3) of the CCP without considering the specific circumstances of the case or the financial balance between the awarded costs and the compensation received.<\/p>\n The ECtHR awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses before the Court.<\/p>\n The ECtHR\u2019s judgment in Boychev v. Bulgaria<\/em> reaffirms that legal costs must be fair, proportionate, and justified. It directly criticizes the formalistic approach of Bulgarian courts and stresses that the right of access to a court cannot be undermined by imposing a disproportionate financial burden on a party that has partially succeeded.<\/p>\n Moreover, the judgment serves as a reminder of the need to update national legislation and judicial practice to ensure real\u2014not merely formal\u2014access to justice for citizens. Introducing the principle of proportionality when awarding legal costs would be a step towards more equitable and effective justice.<\/p>\nFacts of the Case<\/h3>\n
The ECtHR Decision<\/h3>\n
Conclusions and Significance<\/h3>\n