CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDA8195B9 { width:108.04%; border-collapse:collapse } .s487B7E29 { width:7.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA3D60141 { width:41.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s79DECC81 { width:18.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s43BBA721 { width:18.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s126264A2 { width:15.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEEAFF8A5 { width:7.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s850D78DF { width:41.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE1094600 { width:18.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEF84E461 { width:18.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9034444C { width:15.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 12 December 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 50643/20 NATIONAL LOTTERY AD and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 13 November 2020 communicated on 21 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first and second applicants are shareholding companies, which until the beginning of 2020 were among the leading actors in the gambling sector in Bulgaria. They held gambling licences for different types of lottery games due to expire between 2022 and 2025. In the beginning of 2020 the Bulgarian Parliament adopted amendments to the Gambling Act 2012, stipulating that licences for lottery games could be granted only to the State. The amendments, which entered into force on 22   February 2020, resulted in the immediate and automatic revocation of the applicants’ licences described above. The first and second applicants were therefore obliged to cease immediately most of their business activities. The third, fourth and fifth applicants are among the shareholders of the first and second applicants. The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the revocation of the two companies’ gambling licences and the damage this caused to their businesses. They consider that the 2020 amendments to the Gambling Act amounted to a “wholesale nationalisation of the lottery sector”, which was unlawful and did not pursue any legitimate aim in the public interest, and in relation to which they were offered no compensation.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the ex lege revocation of the first and second applicants’ gambling licences on the strength of the February 2020 amendments to the Gambling Act 2012 amount to a lawful interference with the applicants’ possessions, and was such interference otherwise in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/ registration Nationality/ State of registration Place of residence/ company seat 1. NATIONAL LOTTERY AD 2016 Bulgaria Sofia 2. NEW GAMES AD 2015 Bulgaria Sofia 3. Dimitar Denchev GANEV 1976 Bulgarian Sofia 4. Milen Denchev GANEV 1980 Bulgarian Sofia 5. LOTOBG OOD 2013 Bulgaria Sofia