EHRM, 25-11-2010, nr. 43449/02, nr. 21475/04

At the material time the applicants in application no. 43449/02 ( ‘the Milevi sisters’), both of whom are retired, owned a flat on the first floor of entrance ‘B’ of a U-shaped block of flats in the centre of Sofia. Both of them had lived in that flat since 1963. They submitted that as a result of the events described below, they were forced to move out of the flat. On 11 March 2004 they sold it to a limited liability company for 61,000 euros. On 22 April 2004 they bought a smaller flat in another neighbourhood, and on 15 June 2004 went to live there.

The applicants in application no. 21475/04 ( ‘the Evtimovi family’) own and live in a flat on the first floor of entrance ‘C’ of the same block of flats. Ms Kalina Evtimova's daughter, born on 28 September 2000, also lives there.

In May 2000 a company rented a flat on the ground floor of entrance ‘B’ of the block, below the flat of the Milevi sisters. It started operating a computer club there, without obtaining the necessary permits.

In March 2002 the club moved into a flat situated opposite the original one, again on the ground floor of entrance ‘B’. That flat was located diagonally below both the flat of the Milevi sisters and that of the Evtimovi family.

According to four affidavits, the first of which was drawn up by Mr Hristo Evtimov and Ms Lilia Evtimova, and the rest by witnesses asked by the applicants to describe the situation, the club had forty-six computers and two vending machines. It was open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The services it offered were chiefly computer gaming and Internet surfing. The club's clients, mostly teenagers and young adults, often gathered in front of the building, chatting loudly and shouting, drinking alcohol, and smoking cigarettes and allegedly even narcotic drugs. They would often break the door of the building and enter the passageway, where they drank and smoked. The noise and the vibrations generated by them, both while inside the club and while entering or leaving the premises, could be clearly heard and felt in the flats of the Milevi sisters and of the Evtimovi family.

The Milevi sisters produced a certificate in which their general practitioner attested that from the middle of 2002 both of them started complaining of constant headaches, insomnia, irritability and anxiety, had high blood pressure, and had lost weight. In 2003 Ms Meri Mileva developed a sinus tachycardia. As a result of her increasingly frequent cardiac crises, she had to be hospitalised. According to the doctor, those health problems were due to the constant disturbance and noise caused by the club's operations, and gradually subsided after the Milevi sisters went to live elsewhere in June 2004.

Having obtained a building permit on 11 May 2002, in August 2003 the owner of the flat occupied by the computer club until March 2002 (see paragraph 12 above) started transforming it into an electronic games club. The works involved pulling down internal walls, installation of high-voltage cables and changing the flat's windows.

On 29 August 2003 the Milevi sisters complained about that to the Sofia Regional Building Control Directorate, saying that no assent had been sought from them under section 38 of the 2001 Territorial Organisation Act (see paragraphs 50 and 51 below). On 29 September 2003 the Directorate replied that the works were lawful as they had been carried out under a permit.

The Milevi sisters then complained to the National Building Control Directorate. On 2 December 2003 it instructed the Regional Directorate to check the lawfulness of the works. Apparently nothing ensued.

In the meantime, on 13 October 2003, the Milevi sisters contested the building permit before the Sofia Regional Building Control Directorate. On 26 November 2003 the Directorate rejected the challenge as being out of time. On an appeal by the Milevi sisters, on 5 April 2004 the Sofia City Court set that decision aside and instructed the Directorate to examine the challenge on the merits. The Directorate appealed against that ruling, but on 26 October 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld it.

In the meantime, the Milevi sisters made numerous complaints about the conversion to both the building control authorities and the police, apparently to no avail.

In 2002 a company rented the flat adjacent to the flat of the Milevi sisters and started using it as an office. The Milevi sisters asserted that after that they could hear telephones ringing and conversations, loud voices, moving of furniture and banging of doors.

On 18 April 2002 the applicants complained to the municipality, stating that the company had not sought their assent for using the flat as an office, in breach of section 38(3) of the 2001 Territorial Organisation Act (see paragraph 50 below). On 17 June 2002 municipal inspectors visited the building and noted that the flat was being used as an office. However, the owner was not present and the inspectors were not allowed access to the premises to make more detailed findings. They sent a summary of their findings to the Sofia Regional Building Control Directorate.

After repeated complaints by the Milevi sisters, on 15 November 2002 the Directorate instructed the municipality to gather more evidence that the flat was indeed being used as commercial premises entailing regular visits by outsiders. As a result, on 30 January 2003 the inspectors made a second visit. However, they were refused access to the flat and the police, who had been called in aid, did not show up.

Apparently the office continued operating undisturbed throughout that period.

Section 38(3) of the 2001 Territorial Organisation Act (Закон за устройство на територията) provides that a flat in a condominium may be converted into an office, entailing visits by outsiders, if it is on the ground floor and if all sanitary, hygienic, fire-protection and technical requirements have been complied with. The conversion must be approved expressly, in writing and before a notary by all immediate neighbours of the premises whose conversion is proposed. Exceptionally, a flat on a higher floor may also be converted into an office, but in that case the conversion must be approved not only by the immediate neighbours but also by the condominium's general meeting.

Section 38(4) provides that a flat on the ground floor of a condominium may be converted into a shop or other commercial premises, if all sanitary, hygienic, fire-protection and technical requirements have been complied with and if a separate entrance which does not affect the passageway to the residential part of the building is made possible. The conversion must be approved by the condominium's general meeting and requires the express written assent, certified by a notary, of all immediate neighbours of the premises whose conversion is proposed.

Under section 149(1) and (2)(2), a permit allowing the reconstruction of an existing building must be brought to the attention of the persons whose approval is required under section 38. They may challenge it before the Regional Building Control Directorate (section 149(3)). Under section 156(1), as worded between January 2001 and July 2003, building permits could, as a rule, be revoked only before the works had started. They could be revoked after that only if they were contrary to the zoning plan, substantially deviated from the building regulations and norms as regards distances to neighbouring buildings, or substantially deviated from the applicable safety requirements (section 156(2), as in force between January 2001 and July 2003).

Under section 178(1), as in force at the material time, it was prohibited to use a building or a part of it before the issuing of a use permit. If a building or a part of it was being used without such permit, the National Building Control Directorate had to ban the use and order that the building's electricity and water supplies and heating be cut off (section 178(5), as in force at the material time). Applications for judicial review of such decisions do not have suspensive effect (section 217(1)(3)). Since such decisions cannot be appealed against before a higher administrative authority, they are immediately enforceable. However, their enforcement may be suspended by the court (section 217(2)). Under section 219, as in force at the material time, the courts had to examine applications for judicial review of such decisions in special fast-track proceedings under Articles 126b–126e of the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure.

Under section 222(2)(2) (now section 222(2)(4)), the National Building Control Directorate enforces decisions prohibiting the use of buildings or parts of them. In so doing, it may use technical devices and means (section 222(3)). If it encounters resistance, it may enlist the help of the police (section 222(5)).

Section 50 of the 1951 Property Act (Закон за собствеността) provides that the owner of a piece of immovable property cannot carry out actions which impede, in more than the usual way, the use of the neighbouring properties.

Under section 45(1), the owner of a flat in a condominium may be evicted by resolution of the general meeting of the condominium if he or she, among other things, systematically breaches the internal regulations of the building or the resolutions of the general meeting for the internal order of the building, or acts contrary to good morals. However, the owner may request the district court to annul the resolution (section 46(1)). The eviction may take place only if the owner has not stopped the breach despite having been warned in writing that he or she will be evicted (section 45(2)). The district court may issue a writ of execution pursuant to the resolution, once it has become final (section 46(2)). According to a 1959 decision of the former Supreme Court, that does not preclude the owner from challenging his eviction in subsequent enforcement proceedings (реш. № 4028 от 23 ноември 1959 г. по гр. д. № 5667/1959 г., ВС, I г. о.). There is no reported case-law on the application of those provisions in recent decades. In May 1957 the former Supreme Court described that procedure as a means of last resort, to be used only where the owner persisted in his breach (реш. № 1260 от 9 май 1957 г. по гр. д. № 3231/1957 г., ВС, IV г. о.).

Under section 109(1), an owner may request the cessation of any ‘unjustifiable activity’ which hinders him in the exercise of his rights.

In an interpretative decision of 6 February 1985 (тълк. реш. № 31 от 6 февруари 1985 г. по гр. д. № 10/1984 г., ОСГК на ВС) the former Supreme Court explained that this claim (actio negatoria) provided protection against unjustified interferences — whether direct or indirect — which prevented an owner from using fully his property. It can be used to declare such interferences unlawful and enjoin the persons concerned to stop them and remove their effects (for instance, demolish a building in a neighbouring property). Unlike decisions of the building control authorities, the courts' judgments pursuant to such claims finally determine the disputes between the aggrieved owner and the perpetrator of the interference, and may be executed by force.

The claim may be brought by the owner against any person, irrespective of whether or not they are owners of an adjoining property (реш. № 1544 от 30 октомври 2002 г. по гр. д. № 18899/2001 г., ВКС, IV г. о.). It may be brought by the owner of a flat in a condominium against the owner of another flat (реш. № 1818 от 13 ноември 2002 г. по гр. д. № 2183/2001 г., ВКС, ІV г. о.). It may be joined to a tort claim in respect of any past loss (реш. № 1272 от 16 септември 2004 г. по гр. д. № 660/2003 г., ВКС, ІV г. о.).

Noise nuisance is actionable under section 109(1) (реш. № 133 от 29 декември 1988 г. по гр. д. № 100/1988 г., ОСГК на ВС).

For the purposes of section 109(1), a distinction needs to be made between buildings on neighbouring properties and activities taking place there; while the former may be lawful and thus not actionable, the latter may unduly impinge on neighbours' rights and thus be subject to injunctive relief (реш. № 216 от 4 март 1985 г. по гр. д. № 43/85 г., ВС, IV г. о.).

In some cases (реш. № 1291 от 16 ноември 1992 г. по гр. д. № 1038/1992 г., ВС, ІV г. о., реш. № 1506 от 9 февруари 1993 г. по гр. д. № 1364/1992 г., ВС, ІV г. о.) the former Supreme Court has associated the existence of ‘unjustifiable activity’ resulting from constructions in neighbouring properties with failure to observe the building regulations. However, in other cases the former Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation have held that the question whether a reconstruction amounts to ‘unjustifiable activity’ does not automatically hinge on whether it complies with the building regulations or has been approved by the authorities. The decisive factor appears to be whether it unduly interferes with the neighbours' enjoyment of their properties (реш. № 1245 от 4 юли 1994 г. по гр. д. № 2149/1992 г., ВС, ІV г. о.; реш. № 411 от 2 март 1999 г. по гр. д. № 2190/98 г. , ВКС, V г. о.; реш. № 1190 от 2 юли 1999 г. по гр. д. № 2042/1998 г., ВКС, ІV г. о.; реш. № 1319 от 5 юли 1999 г. по гр. д. № 501/1998 г., ВКС, ІV г. о.; реш. № 1446 от 26 юли 1999 г. по гр. д. № 256/1999 г., ВКС, ІV г. о.; реш. № 7 от 24 февруари 2000 г. по гр. д. № 1440/1999 г., ВКС, ІV г. о.; реш. № 1803 от 11 ноември 2002 г. по гр. д. № 2124/2001 г., ВКС, ІV г. о.; реш. № 1818 от 13 ноември 2002 г. по гр. д. № 2183/2001 г., ВКС, IV г. о.; реш. № 366 от 5 април 2004 г. по гр. д. № 2866/2002 г., ВКС, ІV г.о.; реш. № 316 от 18 февруари 2005 г. по гр. д. № 2746/2003 г., ВКС, ІV г. о.; реш. № 20 от 29 януари 2009 г. по гр. д. № 6259/ 2007 г., ВКС, ІV г. о.; реш. № 1039 от 2 октомври 2008 г., по гр. д. № 4390/2007, ВКС, г. о.; опр. № 945 от 26 август 2009 г. по гр. д. № 751/2009 г. на ВКС, І г. о.).

The Regulations for Management, Order and Supervision in Condominiums (Правилник за управлението, реда и надзора в етажната собственост), adopted in 1951, at the material time dealt with the internal organisation of condominiums. They contained detailed rules on the internal order of the buildings and the use of the common parts.

Regulation 12(1) provided that the resolutions of the condominium's general meeting were immediately enforceable. The chairman of the condominium's management council could apply to the competent district court to obtain a writ of execution. The resolutions for evicting an owner under section 45 of the 1951 Property Act (see paragraph 56 above) were not immediately enforceable. To obtain a writ of execution, the condominium had to show that it had warned the owner under section 45(2) of the Act (regulation 12(2)).

Under section 268 of the 1997 Ministry of Internal Affairs Act, the organs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs could stop the use of buildings, installations, etc., as well as stop all other activities which, among other things, posed a risk for public order.

Regulations on Public Order and the Preservation of Municipal Property on the Territory of the Municipality of Sofia (Наредба № 1 за обществения ред и опазването на общинските имоти на територията на Столична голяма община), issued by the Sofia City Council in May 1993 and superseded by similar regulations in March 2009, dealt with public order on the territory of the Municipality of Sofia. Regulation 3(1) prohibited noisy social events in residential buildings. Under regulation 3(3), noisy commercial activities in residential buildings were allowed only if their inhabitants agreed in writing. Under regulation 3(4), if no effective noise protection could be secured, the use of noisy devices and machines was allowed only from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. and from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Breaches of the Regulations were punishable by a fine (regulation 24(1)). Repeat offenders were liable to an increased fine (regulation 24(4)). If the repeated offence was connected to a profession or a trade, the penalty could also be a prohibition on engaging in such profession or trade for a period ranging from one month to two years (ibid.).

The supervisory organs, which included the police and officials authorised by the mayor (regulation 29(1)), had to note down every breach of the regulations (regulation 29(2)).

The Regulations on the Manner of Carrying On Commercial Activities on the Territory of the Municipality of Sofia (Наредба за реда на провеждане на търговска дейност на територията на Столичната община), issued by the Sofia City Council on 27 July 2001 and superseded by new regulations in January 2005, subjected commercial operations on the territory of Sofia to a licence requirement. Regulation 10(3) provided that when giving a licence the borough mayor had to fix the working hours of the operation in a way that ensured the tranquillity of others and public order. Under regulation 34(3) the borough mayors had to take all necessary steps to stop and punish breaches of the regulation. Such breaches were punishable by a fine and, in case of repetition, a ban on commercial activities for a period of six months (regulation 36(1)).

Section 16 of the 1979 Administrative Procedure Act, as in force at the material time, provided that administrative authorities could direct that a decision be immediately enforceable, if that was necessary to protect the life or health of individuals, prevent losses for the economy, or safeguard other material State or public interests, or if there was a risk that the enforcement would subsequently be frustrated or seriously hindered.

Section 1(1) of the 1988 State Responsibility for Damage Caused to Citizens Act (on 12 July 2006 its name was changed to ‘State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act’) provides that the State is liable for damage suffered by private persons as a result of unlawful decisions, actions or omissions by civil servants committed in the course of or in connection with the performance of their duties. Section 1(2) provides that compensation for damage stemming from unlawful decisions may be claimed after the decisions concerned have been annulled in prior proceedings.

The Milevi sisters claimed 46,600 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. They submitted that the unabated nuisance from which they had been suffering and the ensuing worsening of their health had forced them to move out of their flat. As a result, in March 2004 they had had to sell it urgently for EUR 61,000, which was below its fair market value. They presented an expert's report which concluded that the flat's fair market value at the time of the sale was 1.6 times higher than the price at which the applicants had sold it. The applicants claimed the difference, which amounted to EUR 36,600. They further pointed out that, as evidenced by the same report, since the end of 2004 the prices of immovable property in Sofia had soared, the increase being more pronounced in the centre than in the neighbourhood where they had bought another flat in April 2004. They said that if they had not been forced to sell their original flat in March 2004 with urgency, they could have sold it later for a much higher price, which had been only partly offset by the concomitant increase in the market value of their new flat. Whilst it was very difficult to calculate precisely the resulting loss of profit, EUR 10,000 seemed like a reasonable estimate.

The Evtimovi family made no claim in respect of pecuniary damage.

The Government submitted that the Milevi sisters had failed to prove that their decision to sell their flat had a direct causal link with the violation of the Convention. Even if their worsened health had had a certain connection with that violation, they could have chosen other methods to avoid the nuisance, such as letting their flat and renting a flat elsewhere. In any event, the amounts claimed had no objective basis.

According to the Court's case-law, there must exist a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by an applicant and the violation found (see, as a recent authority, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 110, ECHR 2009-…). In López Ostra the Court accepted that the depreciation of a property as a result of severe environmental degradation and the need to move house on account of that degradation had a sufficient causal connection with the violation of Article 8 (see López Ostra, cited above, § 65). However, unlike that case, the nuisance in the instant case was not of such a nature or intensity as to bring about a clear reduction in the market value of the applicants' flat (see S. v. France, p. 262, and Hatton and Others, § 127, and contrast Baggs, p. 15, all cited above). There is nothing to indicate that the factors which caused the Milevi sisters to wish to move out of the flat would necessarily diminish its value in the eyes of a prospective buyer intending to put it to non-residential use. Indeed, it cannot be overlooked that the flat was purchased by a company (see paragraph 9 above). Nor is it apparent that the applicants were forced to sell the flat in such urgency as to be unable to obtain a fair market price for it. The actual price agreed between them and the buyer could be the result of a multitude of factors about which the Court is unable to speculate. The Court is therefore not satisfied that the alleged undervalue at which the Milevi sisters sold their flat and the ensuing loss of profit had a sufficient causal link with the violation of Article 8, and makes no award under this head.

The Milevi sisters claimed EUR 25,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They referred to the intolerable conditions which they had endured for a number of years, chiefly as a result of the operations of the computer club. Those disturbances had had a very negative effect on their health and had eventually forced them to sell their flat, in which they had lived since 1963, and move elsewhere. They compared their situation to that of Ms López Ostra (case cited above) and said that they deserved a similar amount in compensation.

The Evtimovi family claimed EUR 10,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They also claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of Ms Kalina Evtimova's daughter. They likewise referred to the conditions in which they had had to live for a number of years, and laid emphasis on the passive attitude of the authorities.

The Government submitted that the claims were exorbitant, and that any award under this head should take into account the standard of living in Bulgaria and the diminishing incomes in the country as a result of the global economic crisis.

The Court starts by observing that there are no grounds to make an award to Ms Kalina Evtimova's daughter. It may of course be assumed that the nuisance affected her as much as — if not more than — the other members of the Evtimovi family. However, the term ‘injured party’ in Article 41 is synonymous with the term ‘victim’ in Article 34 (former Article 25) of the Convention (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 23, Series A no. 14, and Airey v. Ireland (Article 50), 6 February 1981, § 9, Series A no. 41). There was nothing to prevent Ms Kalina Evtimova's daughter from applying to the Court through her legal representatives and claiming to be a victim of the violation in her own right. However, she did not do so (see Yaşa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, § 124, Reports 1998-VI, and Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, § 129, ECHR 2007-IX, and contrast Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998, § 122, Reports 1998-I, and Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, § 110, Reports 1998-IV). That being said, the Court cannot overlook the fact that Ms Kalina Evtimova herself must have experienced additional distress as a result of the effects of the nuisance on her young child (see López Ostra, cited above, § 65). To that extent, the Court, in assessing the award to be made to Ms Kalina Evtimova, will take into account the suffering of her daughter.

The Court considers that the violation of Article 8 caused each of the applicants non-pecuniary damage which cannot, however, be precisely calculated (see, mutatis mutandis, Taşkın and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 144, ECHR 2004-X). Having regard to the accounts given by the applicants of the effect of the nuisance on each of them, and making its award on an equitable basis, as required under Article 41, the Court awards EUR 7,000 to Ms Pepa Mileva, EUR 7,000 to Ms Meri Mileva, EUR 6,000 to Mr Hristo Evtimov (to be paid to his heirs who continued the proceedings in his stead — see paragraphs 2 and 72 above), EUR 6,000 to Ms Lilia Evtimova, and EUR 8,000 to Ms Kalina Evtimova. To those amounts is to be added any tax that may be chargeable.

The Milevi sisters sought reimbursement of EUR 8,310 incurred in fees for fifty-seven hours of work by their lawyer on the domestic proceedings, at EUR 50 per hour, and thirty-nine hours of work by the same lawyer on the proceedings before the Court, at EUR 140 per hour. They submitted a fee agreement and a time-sheet.

The Evtimovi family sought reimbursement of EUR 2,190 incurred in fees for six hours of work by their lawyer on the domestic proceedings, at EUR 50 per hour, and thirteen and half hours of work by the same lawyer on the proceedings before the Court, at EUR 140 per hour. They also submitted a fee agreement and a time-sheet.

The Government submitted that, in as much as the applicants had not relied on Article 8 before the domestic authorities, the costs for the domestic proceedings had not been incurred for the purpose of challenging or establishing a breach of the Convention. They also argued that the claim in respect of the Strasbourg costs was unrealistic and exorbitant, especially when seen against the backdrop of the standard of living in Bulgaria and the minimal hourly wage there. There was furthermore no reason to charge a higher hourly rate for the Strasbourg proceedings, because they concerned the same issues as the domestic proceedings. The Government suggested that in assessing the quantum of the award the Court should have regard to the rules governing the amounts payable to counsel for their appearance before the national courts.

According to the Court's case-law, costs and expenses claimed under Article 41 must have been actually and necessarily incurred and reasonable as to quantum. Costs incurred to prevent or obtain redress for a violation of the Convention through the domestic legal order are recoverable under that provision (see, among other authorities, Buck v. Germany, no. 41604/98, § 66, ECHR 2005-IV, and, more recently, Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 159, 6 July 2010).

As regards the first point made by the Government, the Court observes that the costs attributable to the domestic proceedings were incurred by the applicants in an endeavour to assert their rights to respect for their private lives and their homes, rights guaranteed by the Convention. Moreover, the domestic proceedings were a necessary pre-condition for referral of the matter to the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6 November 1980, § 18, Series A no. 38). Those costs are therefore in principle recoverable under Article 41.

Concerning the Strasbourg costs, the Court observes that when considering a claim for just satisfaction it is not bound by domestic scales or standards (see, as a recent authority, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 175, ECHR 2004-XII). Nor can it accept the Government's contention that the applicants' submissions in the domestic proceedings and to this Court were substantially the same (see Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom (just satisfaction), nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 30, ECHR 2000-IX). In view of the number of domestic procedures involved and the issues raised in the Strasbourg proceedings, the number of hours billed by the applicants' lawyer does not appear unrealistic. However, that lawyer represented all applicants, both at the domestic level and in the Strasbourg proceedings. Given that the two applications concerned overlapping facts and complaints, a certain reduction appears appropriate (see Kirilova and Others, cited above, § 149in fine, and Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, § 269, 15 March 2007). Moreover, the hourly rate charged by the lawyer for the Strasbourg proceedings is roughly double the rates charged in recent cases against Bulgaria of similar or greater complexity (see Velikovi and Others, cited above, §§ 268 and 274; Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 412/03 and 35677/04, § 183, 22 January 2009; Bulves AD v. Bulgaria, no. 3991/03, § 85, 22 January 2009; Kolevi v. Bulgaria, no. 1108/02, § 221, 5 November 2009; and Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 18967/03, § 160, 3 December 2009). It cannot therefore be regarded as reasonable as to quantum.

Having regard to the materials in its possession and the above considerations, the Court finds it reasonable to award jointly to all applicants the sum of EUR 4,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, to cover costs under all heads.

The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.