Green Alliance – Court Ruling (European Union, 2026)

The applicant, Green Alliance, is an environmental association with its registered office in Bulgaria, founded in 2006. It challenged national regulations under which the State Agency for National Security (the Agency) can, on the decision of its head use “agents on cover” (civil servants who operate covertly within public authorities, private organizations, and certain professions) to carry out intelligence and counterintelligence activities for national security purposes. These regulations derive from the 2007 Act, which established the Agency as the successor to several national security and intelligence bodies, under government supervision, with its head appointed by the President and deputies by the government. Originally adopted in 2008, the regulations required that infiltration occur only where there was a proven operational need and, in many cases, with the consent of the target entity. They also defined the agents’ duties, prohibited the use of force or arrests, and specified employment rights. Amendments in 2018 expanded the scope of potential targets, removed the requirement for the target entity’s consent, and clarified that agents could operate in legal persons and civil associations, as well as in liberal professions, except private law firms, while emphasizing that their cover must not be exposed. The Agency insisted that these agents were distinct from “agents under cover,” who may employ covert surveillance equipment, as “agents on cover” do not use technical surveillance and remain criminally liable for their acts. Critics, including the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and the Supreme Bar Council, warned that these changes could violate privacy rights, professional confidentiality, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), given the limited judicial oversight and explicit safeguards. Green Alliance argued that the regulations allowed arbitrary and disproportionate interference with its rights under Article 8 ECHR and that the absence of effective safeguards could result in abuses. The Bulgarian administrative courts held that the 2007 Act and the subsequent regulations authorizing the deployment of “agents on cover” were lawful. They found that the statutory delegation to the State Agency for National Security was valid, that the deployment of agents did not unlawfully interfere with private life or correspondence, and that sufficient oversight existed through parliamentary committees, government reporting, presidential review, and supervision by the Commission for the Protection of Personal Data. The courts concluded that the regulations struck an appropriate balance between national security needs and the protection of individual rights, and dismissed Green Alliance’s claims of violations of Article 8 ECHR. Following the dismissal of its claims domestically, Green Alliance brought its application to the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that the 2008 regulations on “agents on cover,” as amended in 2018, violated Article 8 ECHR because they allowed interference with the applicant association’s rights to respect for its “home” and “correspondence” without adequate legal safeguards. The Court noted that these regulations enabled the Agency to deploy agents in private organizations and liberal professions without independent or judicial oversight, time-limits, or clear procedural requirements to ensure necessity and proportionality. The regulations lacked mechanisms to supervise agents’ work effectively, and no remedies were available for entities affected by their deployment. Although agents could not use technical surveillance or claim immunity from criminal liability, they could access sensitive communications and premises, potentially interfering with the association’s Article 8 ECHR rights. Domestic remedies, including requests for personal data access or complaints to the Commission for the Protection of Personal Data, were ineffective in practice, as the Agency could refuse disclosure on national security grounds, and legal persons could not independently challenge the deployment of agents. The Court emphasized that the degree of intrusion, rather than the technical method, determines the safeguards required, and found that the Bulgarian legal framework failed to prevent arbitrariness or abuse. While no evidence showed actual deployment against the applicant, the clandestine nature of “agents on cover” meant that the lack of evidence could not negate the violation. Consequently, the regulations did not meet the quality-of-law requirement under Article 8 § 2 ECHR, and the ECtHR found a violation. In applying Article 41 ECHR, the ECtHR considered the association’s claim for just satisfaction, including €4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and €6,500 for legal proceedings. The ECtHR underlined its discretionary power under Article 41 ECHR, noting that in some cases the public vindication of a Convention breach through a binding judgment constitutes sufficient redress. Since the violation stemmed solely from the law’s existence without demonstrable harm to the association, no monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage was necessary. The Court concluded unanimously that the finding of a violation of Article 8 ECHR itself provided sufficient just satisfaction and emphasized that under Article 46 ECHR, the State must take general or individual measures to remedy the violation and align domestic law with Convention standards.