THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GREEN ALLIANCE v. BULGARIA
(Application no. 6580/22)
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
Art 8 • Home • Correspondence • Shortcomings in the legal framework permitting the infiltration of “agents on cover” into private organisations and “liberal professions” • Application by analogy of case-law principles developed in relation to covert surveillance • Work of an “agent on cover” could interfere with the applicant association’s rights • Mere existence of the relevant regulations amounting to an interference with the applicant association’s rights • Examination of the legal framework in the abstract • Lack of minimum safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse • Quality-of-law requirement not met
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
17 February 2026
 
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
THE FACTS
I. THE APPLICANT ASSOCIATION
II. THE REGULATIONS ON “AGENTS ON COVER”
A. As originally issued in 2008
B. The 2018 amendments
1. Proposal by the Agency for those amendments
2. Public consultation about that proposal
(a) Comments by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
(b) Comments by the Supreme Bar Council
(c) Response by the Agency
(d) Adoption of the amendments
3. Text of the amendments
III. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE AMENDED REGULATIONS
A. At first instance
1. Course of the proceedings
2. Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court
B. On appeal
1. Course of the proceedings
2. Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
I. 2007 ACT
A. The Agency, its tasks and powers
B. “Agents on cover” used by the Agency
C. Informers recruited by the Agency
D. Data processing by the Agency
E. General supervision of the Agency’s work
1. By Parliament
2. By the Government
3. By the President of the Republic
F. Access to personal data processed by the Agency
1. Relevant statutory provisions and regulations
2. Case-law of the Bulgarian courts under those provisions
(a) 2012 case
(b) 2014-18 case
(c) First 2021-22 case
(d) Second 2021-22 case
(e) 2024 case
G. Supervision of the processing of personal data by the Agency
II. SPECIAL MEANS OF SURVEILLANCE ACT 1997
III. MANAGEMENT AND FUNCTIONING OF THE SYSTEM FOR SAFEGUARDING NATIONAL SECURITY ACT 2015
IV. PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA ACT 2002
A. Scope of application
1. Ratione personae
2. Application to processing for national security purposes
B. Right to access personal data and restrictions to that right
1. In relation to processing falling within the scope of the GDPR
2. In relation to processing by the authorities for law-enforcement purposes
C. Supervisory authority
D. Remedies
1. In respect of processing falling within the scope of the GDPR
2. In respect of processing by the authorities for law enforcement purposes
V. CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Admissibility
1. The parties’ submissions
(a) Victim status
(b) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) Victim status and exhaustion of domestic remedies
(b) Conclusion about the admissibility of the complaint
B. Merits
1. Victim status and the existence of an interference with rights protected under Article 8 of the Convention
(a) The parties’ submissions
(i) The applicant association
(ii) The Government
(b) The Court’s assessment
(i) Could the work of an “agent on cover” interfere with the rights of the applicant association under Article 8 of the Convention? (ii) Can the applicant association claim to be a victim of interference with those rights on account of the mere existence of the regulations on “agents on cover”? (α) General principles
(β) Application of those principles
‒ Scope of the relevant law
‒ Availability of an effective remedy
‒ Conclusion
2. Justification for the interference
(a) The parties’ submissions
(i) The applicant association
(ii) The Government
(b) The Court’s assessment
(i) General principles
(α) With regard to the level of safeguards
(β) With regard to the manner of examination of those safeguards
(ii) Application of those principles
(α) Accessibility of the law
(β) Grounds on which “agents on cover” may be used and persons who can be placed under surveillance by such agents
(γ) Duration of the deployment of “agents on cover”
(δ) Deployment procedure
(ε) Procedures for storing, accessing, examining, using, communicating and destroying data obtained as a result of the use of “agents on cover”
(στ) Supervision
(ζ) Notification
(η) Remedies
(θ) Conclusion

Outcome for Article 41: violation