issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 317 (2016)  
06.10.2016  
A head teacher was prevented from having access to a court  
in order to challenge her dismissal  
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Chakalova-Ilieva v. Bulgaria (application no. 53071/08)  
the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:  
a violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  
The case concerned Ms Chakalova-Ilieva’s claim that she had been denied access to a court in order  
to challenge her dismissal from her head-teaching position. After her first dismissal, Ms Chakalova-  
Ilieva won a three-year legal battle to obtain reinstatement. However, she was then dismissed again.  
and re-started proceedings. Her second claim was dismissed, on the grounds that she had issued it  
against the wrong defendant: she had sued the Regional Education Inspectorate (“REI”), but the  
court found that she should have issued her claim against her former school. By this time however,  
the two-month time limit for issuing proceedings had passed, and any potential claim against the  
school was time-barred.  
The Court found in particular that Ms Chakalova-Ilieva could not be reproached for having issued her  
claim against the REI, given that: neither the courts nor the REI had objected to the REI being the  
correct defendant in the previous proceedings; it had been the REI which had issued Ms Chakalova-  
Ilieva with her second dismissal order; and at the time, it had been common practice for the  
domestic courts to adjudicate unfair dismissal claims with the REI as the defendant.  
Therefore, due to the courts’ unpredictable change of position, and the operation of the time limit,  
Ms Chakalova-Ilieva had been placed in a situation of being unable to obtain judicial examination of  
her second dismissal, through no fault of her own. No argument had been advanced to suggest that  
this restriction on her right of access to a court had been either in pursuit of a legitimate aim, or  
proportionate. It had therefore been a violation of Ms Chakalova-Ilieva’s rights under Article 6 § 1.  
Principal facts  
The applicant, Veselina Ivanova Chakalova-Ilieva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1951 and  
lives in Stara Zagora (Bulgaria).  
Ms Chakalova-Ilieva worked as a head teacher in a secondary school in Stara Zagora. In July 2002,  
she was dismissed on disciplinary grounds by the head of the REI. She challenged the dismissal in  
court, seeking reinstatement and compensation for lost earnings. Her claim was successful at first  
instance, and was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation in November 2005.  
However, when Ms Chakalova-Ilieva applied to take up her duties again two weeks later, a new  
order was issued for her dismissal by the REI. Once again, she challenged the decision in court. This  
time the REI claimed that it was not the proper defendant to the claim, and that Ms Chakalova-Ilieva  
should have issued her litigation against the secondary school where she had been working prior to  
her dismissal. This objection had not been raised by the REI during the previous proceedings, or any  
of the courts that had previously heard the case. Nevertheless, in April 2006 the Stara Zagora District  
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,  
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges  
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final  
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.  
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.  
Court ruled in favour of the objection, and discontinued the proceedings. Ms Chakalova-Ilieva  
appealed this decision. However, after a series of different court rulings the Plovidv Appeal Court  
ultimately reached the same conclusion, and dismissed her claim on 16 April 2008.  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (access to court), Ms Chakalova-Ilieva complained that the courts’  
contradictory rulings had put her in a situation in which she had been unable to challenge her  
dismissal, because by the time the courts had decided the school was the appropriate defendant,  
the statutory two-month time limit for bringing the case had elapsed. She had therefore been  
denied effective access to a court. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and  
Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Ms Chakalova-Ilieva complained that she had therefore lost  
the sum she would have obtained in compensation if her case had been examined on the merits,  
and that the State had given her no effective remedy to recover it.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 October 2008.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:  
Angelika Nußberger (Germany), President,  
Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan),  
Erik Møse (Norway),  
Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),  
Yonko Grozev (Bulgaria),  
Carlo Ranzoni (Liechtenstein),  
Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia),  
and also Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
Article 6 § 1 (access to court)  
The Court noted that Ms Chakalova-Ilieva could not be reproached, for having envisaged that the REI  
would once again be the appropriate defendant in her claim. This was because: it had been the REI  
which had issued Ms Chakalova-Ilieva with her second dismissal order; the REI had acted as a  
defendant in the similar proceedings which had ended only two weeks before the second dismissal  
order had been sent; and at the time, it had been common practice for the domestic courts to  
adjudicate unfair dismissal claims with the REI as the defendant. Though the Bulgarian courts had  
later ruled that individual schools were the appropriate defendants in such claims, such rulings had  
not already been made at the time that Ms Chakalova-Ilieva had made her second claim.  
Furthermore, by the time of the first hearing in which the REI had raised its objection to being a  
defendant in the proceedings, the statutory two-month time limit for bringing a case had already  
passed, and any possible claim against the school by Ms Chakalova-Ilieva had become time-barred.  
Therefore, due to the courts’ unpredictable change of position, and the operation of the time limit,  
Ms Chakalova-Ilieva had been placed in a situation of being unable to obtain judicial examination of  
her second dismissal, through no fault of her own.  
The right of access to a court may be restricted, if such a restriction is carried out in pursuit of a  
legitimate aim, and the means of pursuing it are proportionate. Ms Chakalova-Ilieva’s right of access  
to a court had been restricted: however, neither the national courts nor the Government had sought  
to argue that the restriction had pursued a legitimate aim, and that it had been proportionate.  
2
Therefore, the Court found that there had been a violation of Ms Chakalova-Ilieva’s right of access to  
a court.  
Other articles  
Ms Chakalova-Ilieva relied on Article 1 of Protocol 1 to claim that she had lost the sum she would  
have obtained in compensation had her action been examined on the merits. The Court found that it  
could not speculate as to what the situation would have been had Ms Chakalova-Ilieva had effective  
access to a court, holding that it was therefore not necessary to assess this part of her claim. The  
Court found that it was also not necessary to examine Ms Chakalova-Ilieva’s claim under Article 13,  
because the requirements of this provision had been sufficiently addressed by her claim under  
Article 6 § 1.  
Just satisfaction (Article 41)  
The Court held that Bulgaria was to pay Ms Chakalova-Ilieva 4,000 euros (EUR) in damages and EUR  
2,000 in respect of costs and expenses.  
The judgment is available only in English.  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,  
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive  
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter  
@ECHRpress.  
Press contacts  
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
George Stafford (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 71)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member  
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.  
3