I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in STOYANOVA v. BULGARIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2024-10-08
  • Communication date: 2022-09-13
  • Application number(s): 17157/16
  • Country:   BGR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 8, 8-1, 14
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Access to court)
    Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.597
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

Published on 3 October 2022 The application concerns tort proceedings instituted by the applicant, who is a practising lawyer, against a private television company.
On 15 May 2012, a few weeks before the annual Pride Parade in Sofia, the applicant was asked to state her name and subscribe to a petition against the parade.
Her consent was video recorded without her being aware of that and later broadcasted on television, portraying her in a negative light.
The applicant filed an action for damages against the TV company, claiming that her statement was presented in a distorted way and that the broadcast had had a negative impact on her professional reputation.
The domestic courts (final decision of the Sofia City Court of 24 September 2015) held that the applicant’s right to private life had been infringed and allowed her compensation claim in part.
They awarded her compensation of 250 euros (EUR) and costs of EUR 58, but at the same time ordered her to pay EUR 370 to the defendant in respect of costs of proceedings corresponding to the part of the claim that was rejected.
The applicant complains under Article 6 and Article 8 of the Convention that, despite the fact that her claim was deemed well-founded and she was awarded compensation for the damages sustained, the costs she was ordered to pay to the defending party exceeded the amount of the compensation and thus made the litigation pointless.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.
Has the allegedly disproportionate award of costs of proceedings to the opposing party violated the applicant’s right of access to court guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia, no.
72152/13, §§ 97-107 and 122, 6 September 2016; Čolić v. Croatia, no.
49083/18, §§ 39-59, 18 November 2021 and National Movement Ekoglasnost v. Bulgaria, no.
31678/17, §§ 68-84, 15 December 2020)?
2.
Have the national authorities afforded adequate protection to the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, as required by Article 8 of the Convention?
In particular, when determining the amount of costs due to the opposing party, did the national courts strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests involved?
Published on 3 October 2022 The application concerns tort proceedings instituted by the applicant, who is a practising lawyer, against a private television company.
On 15 May 2012, a few weeks before the annual Pride Parade in Sofia, the applicant was asked to state her name and subscribe to a petition against the parade.
Her consent was video recorded without her being aware of that and later broadcasted on television, portraying her in a negative light.
The applicant filed an action for damages against the TV company, claiming that her statement was presented in a distorted way and that the broadcast had had a negative impact on her professional reputation.
The domestic courts (final decision of the Sofia City Court of 24 September 2015) held that the applicant’s right to private life had been infringed and allowed her compensation claim in part.
They awarded her compensation of 250 euros (EUR) and costs of EUR 58, but at the same time ordered her to pay EUR 370 to the defendant in respect of costs of proceedings corresponding to the part of the claim that was rejected.
The applicant complains under Article 6 and Article 8 of the Convention that, despite the fact that her claim was deemed well-founded and she was awarded compensation for the damages sustained, the costs she was ordered to pay to the defending party exceeded the amount of the compensation and thus made the litigation pointless.

Judgment